Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill (by Order),

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PASSPORTS TO SOVIET RUSSIA.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why passports are being refused from this country to Soviet Russia, in view of the fact that no state of war exists between His Majesty and the Soviet Government and that no legal blockade is being enforced?

Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): Passports are not at present issued for Soviet Russia in accordance with the general policy decided upon at Paris and adopted by the Allies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is the policy adopted by the Allies, and I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend must address any further questions to the Leader of the House.

COLONEL BERMONDT'S FORCES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a strongly-worded Note has been handed to the Esthonian Government on behalf of the Allies, with a request that the army of General Yudenitch may be permitted to
remain on Esthonian territory pending its reinforcement by units from Colonel Bermondt's forces; whether Yudenitch' s troops are in a demoralised state, and have been disarmed by the Esthonians; whether Bermondt's forces are partly Germans; whether they have already killed nine British seamen on board His Majesty's ship "Dragon"; and whether there is any change in the declared Allied policy of compelling Bermondt and his German allies to evacuate the Baltic Provinces?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Supreme Council in Paris have requested the Provisional Government of Esthonia to take no drastic action in regard to General Yudenitch's army, pending a decision on the matter by the Conference. Meanwhile, the disposal of Colonel Bermondt's forces is in the hands of the Inter-Allied Military Mission.
As regards the second part of the question, General Yudenitch's troops, after having retired on a congested front, are in need of reorganisation, and in this connection certain units have been voluntarily disarmed under the auspices of the Esthonian military authorities.
The answer to the third and fourth parts of the question are in the affirmative, and to the fifth part in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said that the answer to the fifth part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have Bermondt's troops yet been sent to join General Yudenitch's troops, or is that movement in contemplation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a queston of which I must have notice.

11. Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Russian military forces serving in the army of Colonel Bermondt, or recently General von der Goltz, are receiving assistance in money or materials from this country; and, if so, whether it is proposed to transport these forces to any other anti-Bolshevik front, or what policy it is intended to adopt in regard to these forces?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The Russian troops serving under General Bermondt and General von der Goltz have never received any assistance in money or materials from this country. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to join these forces to any other anti-Bolshevist forces?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That does not arise out of the question. I really do not know what will happen in that theatre, but it depends entirely on whether the small Governments there make any peace or armistice with the Bolsheviks, and what are the terms of that peace.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be realised when those arrangements are being made that these so-called Russian forces under Colonel Bermondt are in reality forces of the German Baltic barons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend's objection to these gentlemen is not due to the fact that they are pro-German, but to the fact that they are anti-Bolshevist.

PRISONERS.

Mr. LUNN: 14 and 46.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what is the number of Russian prisoners of war in British hands; what is the nature of their employment; where are they stationed;
(2) what is the number of Russian prisoners of war in Allied hands; what is the nature of their employment; where are they stationed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of Russian prisoners in British hands is 100. They are interned at Whitley Bay as hostages for the safety of British prisoners in Russia. I have no information regarding the number of Russian prisoners in the hands of other Allied countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PETROLEUM (STORAGE FACILITIES).

Sir W. SEAGER: 4.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware of the need of adequate storage facilities for oils; and, if so, what steps are being taken to meet the need?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The need of adequate storage facilities for petroleum is fully realised. A considerable amount of tankage has been erected or is projected both on Government and private account, and the position will be kept carefully under review.

CONSULS AND TRADE COMMISSIONER SERVICE (SALARIES).

Sir W. SEAGER: 5.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will give the scale of salaries of the Consular Service and of the Trade Commissioner Service?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reply to the hon. Member's question is necessarily detailed, and will, I fear, not convey much if given orally. I, therefore, propose to circulate the full reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Answer promised:
The old scales of salary for the Consular Service were:


Vice-Consuls
£300
rising
to
£500


Consuls (2nd grade)
£600
"
"
£700


Consuls (1st grade)
£800





Consuls-General £900, £1,000 and £1,200

Local allowances were given in expensive countries, and war bonus when proved necessary.

The scales now paid under the new scheme for the reorganisation of the Consular Service are:


Vice-Consul
£300
rising
to
£800


Consuls
£800
"
"
£1,000


Consuls-General
£1,200
"
"
£1,500

In addition, representation allowances are given, ranging from £100 to £400, according to grade and duties. Rent allowances are also given ranging from £50 to £250. Local allowances for expensive countries are also included. In addition, it is suggested in the new scheme that the salaries proposed should be free of Income Tax, or that some allowance should be given in lieu of such exemption. It is also proposed that war bonus should be continued as at present, subject to revision as the cost of living falls.

The new scales of salary and of representation and rent allowance and the continuance of local allowance have been approved with effect as from the 1st April last, but the questions of allowance in
lieu of exemption from Income Tax and the continuance of war bonus are still under discussion with the Treasury.

The scales of salary for the Trade Commissioner Service are:

First Grade.—£1,000, rising by annual increments of £50 to £1,200 per annum.
Second Grade.—£700, rising by annual increments of £25 to £900 per annum.
Third Grade.—£500, rising by annual increments of £25 to £700 per annum.
Trade Commissioners also receive annual local allowances varying from £300 to £600 in accordance with conditions of living at the post.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CANTEENS (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could arrange that discharged soldiers instead of women should be employed for canteen services at Kidbrooke and other camps; whether he is aware that the women employed at Kidbrooke report at 6 a.m. and finish at 10 p.m., and that they work, apart from rest periods, 12 hours per day; and will he state how many days per week these women are in attendance for canteen work?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to his question on the 12th November, and to the question by the hon. Member for Smethwick on the 19th November. I am informed that the hours of employment stated are not correct. The canteen is open for a quarter of an hour from 7.30 a.m., during which period only two of the staff are on duty; during the remainder of the day the canteen is open from noon till 1.30 p.m. and from 5.30 till 9.45 p.m. The staff are allowed two hours off duty every afternoon, a half-holiday once a week, and a week-end every five weeks.

CADET FEES (WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any alteration has been made in regard to the fees charged to cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst since the termination of the War compared with the charges in force during the War; if so, whether the consequence has been to make it more difficult for a
person. of moderate means to undergo a course of military training at these establishments; if he will state the average cost to a cadet of a complete course of training at Woolwich and Sandhurst during the War and now; and if, in view of the admirable results which were obtained under the special arrangements made for the war emergency, he will consider as to appointing a small Committee of Inquiry to go into the whole subject, and will arrange for the appointment of a representative of Labour on such Committee, to provide a check on the standard of expenditure to be adopted, in order that these national institutions shall not again become the preserves of one favoured class, irrespective of more important qualifications?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The scale of fees to be charged cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst has been under consideration for some time, and I hope that an announcement will be made at a very early date. I hope the result when announced will convince my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no tendency to exclude a "person of moderate means."

Sir F. HALL: When does the right hon. Gentleman think an announcement will be made; also will he reply to the last part of the question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought that my answer covered the last part of the question. I hope that an announcement will be made before the end of the year.

OVERSEA GUARDS.

Mr. G. DOYLE: 8.
asked what steps had been taken to establish a battalion of oversea guards to consist of contingents from each of the great self-governing Dominions; and if the Governments concerned have expressed any opinion or wishes on the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Dominion Governments have been consulted, but no decision has been reached, and I think further consideration of the matter must stand over until the future organisation of the Army is more settled.

BUILDING TRADE CRAFTSMEN (MOBILISATION).

Captain AINSWORTH: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision not to give priority for demobilisation to craftsmen in the building trade, in view of the serious
shortage of skilled labour for the erection of houses so urgently required all over the country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that nothing further can be added to the answer given to the hon. and gallant. Member for Moss Side on 28th October last.

HELICOPTER FLYING MACHINES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the French Government have recently granted a sum of about £4,000 to aid inventors in carrying put experiments with the Helicopter type of flying machine.; whether the Air Ministry are alive to the very great importance of such experiments; whether all encouragement is being given to British inventors who may wish to experiment with this system; and whether any sums of money have been granted for such experiments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first and second parts of this question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third and fourth parts is that any proposals for a Helicopter type flying machine brought to the notice of the Air Ministry are sympathetically considered and such financial assistance as appears proper is given. Adequate financial provision has already been made for the purpose. Since June, 1916, this line of research has been continually explored, and I am personally familiar with the details of the progress made with these experiments, in which, while Minister of Munitions, I took a great interest.

DEMOBILISATION (COST).

Mr. LUNN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the approximate cost of demobilisation, including gratuities, to latest date; what is the estimated cost for the financial year; and whether this amount is included in the £73,000,000 stated on 26th November to be the cost of the Army in the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The cost of the War gratuities in the current financial year is estimated at £71,500,000. This has now practically ail been paid. As explained in the reply to the hon. Member on 26th November, this item was excluded from the £73,000,000 stated therein. I am unable to give any figure purporting to represent the whole cost of demobilisation.

ARMY COST.

Mr. LUNN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish and circulate a statement showing the estimated cost for the current financial year of the British Army, allocating the cost to the various areas where troops have been or are stationed, including cost of pay, separation allowances, transport, supplies, etc., and any other cost defrayed out of the War Office Vote?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the hon. Member will find what he requires on page 9 of the Army Estimates just circulated, where the cost of the forces, British and Indian, is divided according to areas.

LABOUR CORPS RECORDS (GIRL CLERKS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large number of girls employed as clerks at the Labour Corps Records, Nottingham, are under notice, and are not entitled to a gratuity on leaving; and whether he will consider the desirability of granting a gratuity to them the same as to the Army Pay Corps, Women's Royal Air Force, and the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, who have been engaged on similar work?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Clerks serving on an ordinary civilian engagement are not entitled to a gratuity, and I regret that none can be given.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is it a fact that these same persons were called on to sign agreements to remain on six months after Peace was declared, and has not that unfairly handicapped them in returning to pre-war occupations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The gratuity is kept for persons who took on a military engagement and to reopen the terms would rather lead the House into channels of expenditure altogether indefinite in their scope.

Mr. ATKEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of girls for labour in Nottingham, and also a large number of discharged soldiers wanting places?

MACHINE GUN CORPS (OFFICERS).

Major GLYN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Special Reserve, Territorial Force, and holders of temporary commissions, belonging to the Machine Gun Corps are
now employed in India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; whether a considerable number of these officers are being retained in the Service in spite of their urgent desire to return to their civil work and professions; whether there are a sufficient number of fully trained and suitable Regular officers qualified for work with the Machine Gun Corps who could relieve all non-Regular officers; and whether the establishment of Regular Machine Gun Corps battalions asked for by the military authorities in India has been adhered to, so that the demobilisation of Machine Gun Corps personnel now in India can be proceeded with?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to this question is too lengthy to read out in the House, and I will therefore, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the Answer referred to:

The following Special Reserve Territorial Force and temporary officers are serving in the Machine Gun Corps, Infantry, Cavalry, and Motor branches:—


—
Special Reserve.
Territorial Force.
Temporary.
Total.


India
12
59
90
161


Egypt
13
34
76
123


Mesopotamia
—
7
47
54


Total
25
100
213
338

These figures are necessarily only approximate as officers are continually being sent home for demobilisation as units are reduced. None but Regular officers have been sent to these theatres lately. A considerable number of these officers are anxious to return at once to civil life, and are retained against their will. They are, however, being relieved at the earliest possible moment as and when units can be reduced or Regular officers can be provided for relief.

There are not a sufficient number of fully trained and suitable Regular officers qualified for work with the Machine Gun Corps as at present established, but reductions will be made in the number of Machine Gun Units in the various theatres, and this will necessarily have the effect of releasing demobilisable personnel.

Five Machine Gun Battalions have already been sent or are under orders to proceed to India, and this should meet the requirements of that country in this respect.

UNIFORMS.

Major GLYN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to issue the report of the Committee set up by the War Office to report upon uniforms?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The report of the Dress and Uniform Committee is still under consideration, and I regret I am not yet in a position to make any announcement as to the decision regarding its recommendations.

Major GLYN: May I ask whether the regulations previously issued about the uniforms to be bought by officers on joining still hold good, in order to save officers just gazetted purchasing a large amount of uniforms which might be useless?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry to hear there is any doubt about it. The War Office ought to issue an order to that effect, and I will see that that is done.

SOLDIERS (LOST MEMORIES).

Major KELLEY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing there are a few returned soldiers in institutions in this country who have lost their memories, he could see his way to have their photographs published in some of the leading papers, in the hope that their relatives may recognise them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have already explained, experience has shown that identification by photographs, especially when reproduced in the Press, is most unreliable, and the suggestion made in the hon. and gallant Member's question is not considered practicable or desirable. Anyone who wishes can send to the War Office a photograph of a missing soldier relative for comparison with those of the men unidentified owing to mental trouble. As stated in answer to a question on Monday of last week, there are three such cases at present.

GRATUITIES (OFFICERS).

Colonel ASHLEY: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will reconsider the decision that the gratuity under Army Order 324 of 1919 of £100
per year of service in the case of officers retiring with at least ten years' service, shall not be 'payable to officers who were not serving before the date of the Army Order, 13th September, 1919, as this interpretation of the Regulation inflicts serious hardship and injustice upon officers who saw years of war service, but who may have retired shortly after the date in question, say, in January or February of this year; and whether the Regulation may now be modified and applied to all officers who have served for a substantial period in the Great War and retired with ten years' service after demobilisation had commenced?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been decided to apply the concession to all such officers retiring after the date of the Armistice.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT STATION, PUTNEY HEATH.

Mr. LORDEN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that it was proposed to continue the anti-aircraft station at Putney Heath until a permanent site was found, he would give instructions for the station to be put in a cleanly and satisfactory state at once and some provision made for washing motors and lorries other than the roadway; and would he state what steps, if any, had been taken to prevent contamination of the filtered water in the reservoir?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that there is no other space for washing motors and lorries other than at the side of the road, where a special place was made for that purpose. Special precautions have been taken in order that the filtered water in the reservoir should not be contaminated, and the washhouses and latrines have been constructed well away from the reservoir. A sanitary inspector recently inspected this station and expressed his satisfaction. The Water Board were also satisfied with the arrangements made. Instructions have been issued for the station to be kept in a cleanly and satisfactory state.

RECORD OFFICES (ARMY PENSIONERS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been called to the case of Army pensioners who were employed as clerks in Record Offices and other Departments of the War Office prior to the War and who, on the outbreak of War, were desirous of re-enlisting but were not permitted to do
so on the ground that they were rendering more useful service where they were; whether these men had, during the War, been engaged in the same work as if they had, in fact, re-enlisted and in many cases more laborious work; and whether he would consider the claim of these men to be granted the benefit of Army Order 325 of 1919, and to have their pensions reassessed as if they had re-enlisted, and for that purpose to have this Army Order amended?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated last Tuesday, in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Canterbury, I regret I am unable to permit any departure from the terms of the Warrant requiring military service during the War as a condition of increase of pension.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are not these men, who were prevented from re-enlisting, as much entitled to the gratuity on the ground that they did precisely the same work as those who did enlist?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I think the only rule on which we can proceed is to regard what the person actually did, and whether that work brought him within the decision as to the gratuity.

Sir J. BUTCHER: These men wanted to re-enlist, but were not allowed to do so?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There may be many people in different spheres of employment who would have liked to have enlisted, bad they been allowed to do so.

WIMBLEDON COMMON CAMP.

Sir A. FELL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of soldiers now occupying the camp on Wimbledon Common; if the greater part of the temporary wooden buildings in the camp enclosure were now derelict; if the camp occupied the finest portion of Wimbledon Common; and when would it be restored to the conservators of the common, and applied to its proper use as the principal recreation ground and lung in the neighbourhood of London?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of troops in occupation of the camp on Wimbledon Common is 90 officers, 1,647 other ranks. There is also a considerable quantity of stores. None of the huts is derelict. Such huts as are now vacant are being gradually occupied as battalions, recruited on a Regular basis, in-
crease in strength. It is not intended to retain the camp any longer than is absolutely necessary; but, barracks in London having fallen into a state of disrepair owing to the War, I regret it is not possible to dispense with the camp at present.

Sir A. FELL: Seeing that the camp was constructed for 5,000 or 6,000 men, and occupied by that number, may I ask whether, now that there is a very much smaller number in occupation, a large portion of the ground could not be surrendered to the conservators?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will see that my hon. Friend is informed.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the repairs to the London barracks will be completed, so that we shall then have some date for the freeing of Wimbledon Common?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot. Building is very difficult nowadays. All I can say is that we shall do our very best to quit Wimbledon Common at the earliest possible moment.

WOMEN MOTOR DRIVERS (WAR OFFICE).

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any women were now employed by the War Office discharging the duties of motor drivers or carrying out duties formerly carried out by the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps; if so, how many; and whether it was intended to continue their employment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of enrolled women employed as motor drivers is 1,094, including 236 under notice. Reductions are constantly being made as their terms of enrolment expire. In addition, there are a certain number of women civilians temporarily employed upon work formerly carried out by members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps, as men with the requisite experience and qualifications are not in all cases available. The numbers cannot be given without an inquiry throughout all commands. I am not in a position to say how long it may be necessary to continue their employment.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not possible to employ some of the discharged soldiers and sailors on duties now undertaken by women?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is being kept in mind as far as possible, and the numbers of women are being reduced very rapidly and drastically. There must be a certain give and take in these matters and a certain consideration. We are reducing the numbers of women as fast as possible. I do not think we ought to take up the position of driving the whole lot out by a stroke of the pen.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that thirteen months after the Armistice, with an enormous number of men asking for jobs, it would be a great deal better to get rid of these women in order to give the men a chance?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are getting rid of the women in a very rapid way. I do not agree at all that thirteen months have been wasted.

BRITISH TROOPS IN TURKEY.

Mr. FORREST: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War what parts of the Ottoman Empire were now under the control of British troops; and what parts they were jointly controlling with the troops of our Allies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of the question, of the pre-war Turkish Empire, Mesopotamia, Hodeida, and part of Palestine are in the occupation of British troops. As regards the second part, Thrace, Constantinople and the Straits and the Anatolian Railway are in joint occupation of British and Allied troops.

BATTLEFIELD MEMORIALS.

Mr. FORREST: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could state the battlefields, other than those on Belgian soil, on which special sites are to be reserved as memorials to British feats of arms in the late War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Elland on 3rd November. Applications from units to acquire land for memorials in France are in process of negotiation with the French authority concerned. As regards other theatres of war, I have nothing to add to my previous reply. I may add that I hope early next year to be able to make a statement on the subject of national memorials on the battlefields of France and other theatres of war.

BLACK SEA ARMY.

Mr. WATERSON: 25.
asked the. Secretary of State for War whether battalions of the Dublin Fusiliers and Royal Scots Fusiliers had recently left this country, or will shortly be leaving, to join the Army of the Black Sea; where these men would be stationed; and whether they were being sent out to relieve forces which were returning home, or represented an addition to the Army of the Black Sea?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The General Officer Commanding the Army of the Black Sea will decide the places in which these battalions will be stationed. They are being sent out in relief of the forces returning home and are not an addition to the Army of the Black Sea.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the fact that all British troops are to be withdrawn, why these men are going at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Who said British troops were to be withdrawn?

Mr. HOGGE: You did.

Mr. CHURCHILL: From Turkey! The Army of the Black Sea is stationed in Turkey.

MESOPOTAMIA (WIRELESS OPERATORS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the retention of a wireless squadron in Mesopotamia meant that men who enlisted for the period of the War were being compulsorily retained in that country and were being employed in the transmission of ordinary commercial traffic; whether he was aware that the Government had decided that all soldiers employed on civilian work must be paid the civilian rate of pay for such work; and whether he would issue instructions that those Post Office telegraphists who were being compulsorily retained in Mesopotamia, and who were to be called upon to handle commercial traffic between London and the East, should be paid the rate of pay proper to civilian wireless operators in the employment of private companies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiry is being made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Post Office telegraphists who had not had a day's furlough since landing in Mesopotamia in 1916 had been sent to wireless stations to replace Australian operators, many of whom had less than twelve months' service in that country; whether he was aware of the indignation which was felt at this penalisation of men who enlisted from this country; whether he was aware that, although General Regimental Order 1,049, of the 24th September, 1919, laid it down that all men who were called to the Colours prior to 1st July, 1916, were now eligible for demobilisation, the and wireless squadron orders for the week ending 12th October, 1919, stated that the strength of the squadron had now been reduced to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of wireless communication, and that it would be impossible to consider any further cases for demobilisation; and whether he would issue instructions that telegraphists should not be specially selected for victimisation because of the value of their skill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are being made, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

ARMY INSTRUCTORS, 1914.

Captain LOSEBY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the advisability of recognising in some extraordinary manner the cases of ex-Regular warrant officers to whom a special appeal was issued by Lord Kitchener in 1914 to rejoin the Army as instructors for the purpose of training the New Armies and who responded in large numbers and had no small share in the subsequent defeat of the enemy, but whose efforts had, up to the present, not received any special recognition?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of an award for those who have rendered service outside theatres of war is under consideration. I think that those who have served in the theatres of war must have their case dealt with first.

Captain LOSEBY: In view of the fact that it was considered worth while to issue a special appeal to these particular men, would it not also be worth while, now that their service is terminated, to recognise their work?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will take three or four years to get the medals and clasps
out for the men who did the fighting. I do feel that there is not a great deal of urgency in settling the awards to those who did not take part in the active sphere. I agree that it is a matter which should be carefully considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Give them the O.B.E.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN ARMY.

Mr. FORREST: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War what details he had received within the last few days of a nature to suggest attempts to reconstitute the German Army as a fighting force?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received no information to show that efforts are being made in Germany to reorganise the army for offensive purposes. On the contrary ad the evidence goes to show that the Regular Army is being reduced in accordance with the Peace terms, although strictly these were, of course, only to take effect after the ratification. The Regular Army or Defence Force was at its maximum in August, 1919, when it was estimated at approximately 500,000 men. Its present strength is estimated at 390,000 men. Under Article 163 of the Peace Treaty these troops are to be reduced to 200,000.
In addition, there are under the Ministry of the Interior, the Reserve Formations, Civic Guards and Armed Constabulary. Of these, only the last named are mobile, and of immediate value as a fighting force. The strength of the Constabulary is estimated at about 70,000 men, and they are distributed in the larger towns. The Reserve Formations and Civic Guards are civilians who have agreed to serve in case of serious local disturbances, and the former would act as reserves to the Defence Force. Neither are in uniform or armed, their rifles being kept in depots. I understand that the Peace Conference is at present considering the attitude to be adopted regarding these organisations.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it known how many guns these forces possess?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am not able to make a statement on that at present. If notice were given, I could, perhaps, make a statement. The House is in possession of the number of guns which had to be surrendered under the Peace Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA LOSSES (COMPENSATION).

Major COLFOX: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation, if any, has been awarded to the relatives of non-combatants and civilians who lost their lives at sea during the War on account of enemy action; and to whom should such persons apply?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The dependants of any person killed through enemy action while employed afloat by the Government should apply to the Department under which such person served. The dependants of a master, officer, or seaman of a British merchant ship killed in similar circumstances should apply to the Board of Trade. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend particulars of the scheme applicable in the case of the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate particulars of the scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will have that done.
Following are the particulars of the scheme referred to:

WAR RISKS.

Compensation Scheme for Masters, Officers and Seamen.

In the event of a master, officer or seaman of a British merchant ship being killed or injured through war risks, compensation will be paid in accordance with the scale of which particulars are given below.

If the crew are employed and paid by the owners of the vessel, the compensation, including any sums that may be due under the Workmen's Compensation Act, will be administered by the War Risks Association in which the ship was entered at the time of the accident, under an agreement with the Board of Trade.

In the case of vessels not entered in any War Risks Association at the time of the loss, the Liverpool and London War Risks Insurance Association have undertaken to administer the compensation. The owner is not, relieved of any liability to which he may be subject under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and any amounts due under that Act will have to be paid in the usual way. The association, on behalf of the
Board of Trade, will see that the total compensation paid, including any amounts so paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are in accordance with the scheme.

If it is not known in what association the vessel was entered, the information can be obtained either from the owners or from the Board of Trade. Any applications sent to the Board of Trade will be forwarded at once to the association concerned.

The arrangements indicated in this circular will not apply to ships the crews of which are employed and paid by the Admiralty or War Office. In such cases any compensation due will be settled direct by the Department concerned with the party entitled, in accordance with the agreements under which the crews were engaged.

The pensions and allowances payable under the scheme are as follows:

1. In cases of injury or disablement resulting in total incapacity 2/3rds pay; and proportionate allowances will be made if the injury or disablement has only impaired, but not destroyed, the earning capacity of the injured men.
2. In cases of death the widow's pension is 1/3rd of the pay with a minimum of £35 15s. per annum, and such pension is payable until death or remarriage.

Children's allowances are equal to 1/10th pay for each child, with a maximum of £24 per annum or 1/24th pay, whichever be the greater, and with the following minima: £13 per annum for one child, £23 16s. 8d. for two children, £32 10s. for three children, and an additional £6 10s. per annum for each additional child.

When the only dependants of a deceased officer or seaman are children, the allowance for each child is 1/6th pay with a minimum of £13 per annum, and with a maximum of £24 per annum or 1/12th pay, whichever be the greater.

The allowance continues until the age of sixteen, but in the case of a child who is an apprentice receiving not more than nominal wages or is being educated at a secondary school, technical institute or university, the allowance may be continued up to the age of eighteen at the discretion of the War Risks Association.

3. The pay upon which the pensions and allowances are to be calculated will be the rates ruling six months before the outbreak of the War—that is, the rates ruling in February, 1914. An allowance on account of victualling will be added in cases in which a free mess was allowed in addition to pay.

The scheme provides for the satisfaction in full of all legal rights now existing under the Workmen s Compensation Act.

If the disablement allowances under the Workmen's Compensation Act exceed those payable in accordance with the above scale, the allowances under that Act are paid, but, generally speaking, the scheme provides for the payment of disablement allowances in excess of those payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in these cases the payment of the allowances under the scheme will be in satisfaction of all claims under the Act.

In ascertaining the pension payable to a widow or, in cases where there is no widow, the allowances to be made in respect of the children, the amount of compensation payable under the Act will have to be taken into account.

In the case of widows, this will be done by calculating, in accordance with the Post Office tables, the amount of the annuity which could be purchased for the lump sum which is payable to the widow and children by way of compensation under the Act. If the amount of the annuity so purchasable be less than the pension payable under the Admiralty Scheme, then the difference will be paid to the claimant as an annuity and the lump sum will be paid into Court.

The compensation payable under the Act need not be invested in an annuity. It will, following the present practice; be paid into the County Court, and it will be applied, under the direction of the judge, for the benefit of the widow.

Upon this basis the amount of pension the widow will receive in addition to the compensation payable under the Act will, of necessity, depend on the age of the widow. The older the widow is the larger will be the annuity that could be purchased with the compensation money, and therefore the smaller will be the pension payable under the scheme.

The following examples show the manner in which the pension payable to a widow aged thirty will be arrived at:

1. Officer whose pay in pre-war time was £10 a month.—To this pay will be added a victualling allowance of 3s. a day, bringing the total pay up to £174 a year.

The amount of the compensation paid into Court is assumed to be £300.

£
s.
d.


The widow's pension will be 1/3rd of the £174
58
0
0


Less the value of the annuity which could be purchased with the £300 paid into Court
15
12
2



£42
7
10

The widow will therefore receive the £300 paid into Court, and until death or remarriage, £42 7s. 10d. a year.

2. Seamen whose pay in pre-war time was £5 10s. a month.—To this pay will be added a victualling allowance of 1s. 6d. a day, bringing the total pay up to £93 a year. The amount of the compensation paid into Court is assumed to be £300.

£
s.
d.


The widow's pension (as 1/3rd of the £93 is less than the minimum of £35 15s.) will be
35
15
0


Less the value of the annuity which could be purchased with the £300 paid into Court
15
12
2



£20
2
10

The widow will therefore receive the £300 paid into Court, and until death or remarriage £20 2s. 10d. a year.

The children's allowances up to the age of sixteen are in addition to these pensions.

Officers and engineers earning upwards of £250 per annum are not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, and therefore the widow's pension will amount to 1/3rd of their pay plus the children's allowances as set out on page 2. For example, if the officer's pay is £18 a month
there will be added a victualling allowance of 3s. a day, bringing the total pay up to £270 a year.

The widow's pension will be £90 a year, plus the children's allowances as set out on page 2.

Board of Trade,

Revised February, 1919.

Handbill No. 358.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA.

Mr. DOYLE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a secret revolutionary movement is being carried on in this country, one of its objects being to abolish parliamentary government and place the executive power in the hands of a small and violent minority; if he will also state whether the propaganda is being carried on by foreign revolutionary agents, and is being largely subsidised with foreign money and money supplied by certain wealthy Britons; and will he make the facts public and give the names of the subscribers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend is aware that certain persons are carrying on a revolutionary propaganda in this country with the object of abolishing parliamentary government and setting up a tyrannical Government on the lines of the Russian Soviet. Some of these persons make no secret of their activities. Some of the propagandists are of foreign origin. In one case money is known to have been brought from abroad, and in other cases this is suspected—but the amount is probably not large. My right hon. Friend's information as to British subscribers is not sufficiently certain and complete to allow of his making it public.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is any of the secret service money used for the purpose of promoting these organisations, and can the hon. Gentleman give us the head office of this particular organisation?

Major BAIRD: I am afraid I cannot usefully add anything to what I have said.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not possible to have the foreigners who are known to be engaged in this seditious propaganda deported forthwith?

Mr. A. SHORT: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the names of these people?

Major BAIRD: It is rather a delicate matter to deal with, and I do not think anything would be gained by adding to the answer I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORMON AGITATION.

Mr. DOYLE: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the revived Mormon agitation; what steps have been taken to cope with it; and, for the information and protection of potential female members of that Church in this country, whether he has any information whether the practice of polygamy has been publicly disowned or if it is still practised openly in Utah or, as far as can be ascertained, secretly?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made some inquiries, but the information which he has received does not indicate that any revival of Mormon agitation has taken place. Polygamy was publicly disavowed by the Mormon Church in 1891, in obedience to the laws of the United States, and it is certainly not now practised openly. He is not aware of any evidence to show that it is still practised secretly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Home secretary if he will state the number of accidents in England and Wales to cyclists and other road users caused by motor-propelled vehicles during the months of October and November, showing separately the numbers occurring before and after lighting-up time?

Major BAIRD: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE LAW.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: 40 and 41.
asked the Home Secretary (1) what is the number of married persons certified as insane in England and Wales and the average number of cases which recover annually after five years' confinement; whether the
Government will introduce legislation to enable sane parties to obtain divorce in cases of insanity declared incurable after such period of confinement;
(2) what is the number of married persons annually committed by Courts to inebriate reformatories and the percentage of such cases that recover after three years' confinement; and whether the Government will introduce legislation to enable the innocent spouse to obtain divorce in cases of inebriety declared incurable?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made inquiry, and finds that there are no recent figures available. It is very difficult to say when au insane person or an inebriate is cured, and it would be almost impossible to collect statistics on the lines suggested in the questions. The Royal Commission on Divorce, in the Report which they issued in 1912, discussed fully the question of incurable insanity and inebriety in relation to divorce, and gave such figures as could be obtained. Until there is some measure of agreement on this very controversial question, legislation is difficult, and I fear that I can add nothing to the reply given by the Leader of the House on 8th August last.

Mr. BRIANT: 42.
asked the Home Secretary if he can give the number of persons who, on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, or desertion, have been separated according to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and other Acts, and whether the Government will introduce legislation to enable these parties to be divorced and to remarry; and the number of persons whose married life is terminated annually by private deeds of separation; and whether, as such deeds may preclude the innocent party from obtaining divorce on the grounds allowed by the Act of 1857 and thus licenses the profligacy of the guilty, the Government proposes to take any steps to remedy the matter?

Major BAIRD: The number of decrees for judicial separation made under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, upon the grounds specified was 37 in 1918. The last available figures of separation orders made under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and other Acts are those for 1913. In that year 5,173 such orders were granted. No figures of private deeds of separation are available. In
reply to the rest of the question, I can only remind the hon. Member that the Lord Privy Seal on the 6th August stated that the Government could not promote legislation on this subject.

Mr. RENDALL: If there were 5,000 persons separated by law every year during the last fifteen years, are there not over 50,000 persons separated by law and not allowed to marry—is that so?

Major BAIRD: I do not know that that inference can be drawn, and I am not willing to take figures without going into the question.

Mr. BRIANT: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any statistics showing the average number of cases of persistent assault of a husband upon a wife; and whether the Government will introduce legislation granting divorce on grounds of persistent cruelty which rendered married life no longer safe?

Major BAIRD: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOURING THEATRICAL COMPANIES.

Viscount CURZON: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any recommendation from the London County Council with reference to the licensing of the managers and proprietors of touring theatrical companies; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Major BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The proposal would involve legislation, and it presents many difficulties. I can only say that my right hon. Friend will give it consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Sir F. HALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister which, if any, of the principal provisions of the Peace Treaty will be affected in the event of the United States of America refusing to be parties to the League of Nations proposals, and to what extent?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is not possible to deal with this matter by question and answer. It is a complicated question which requires careful investigation by skilled legal experts, and will take time. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be content not to press his inquiries for the present.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR SALE REGITLATIONS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has now been decided that a wine merchant. shall no longer be compelled under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to insist on payment for wine or spirits sold to customers before delivery of the goods can be given; and, if this Regulation is to continue, if he will explain why the Defence of the Realm Regulations are used in peace time to interfere with the legitimate transactions of private individuals?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Regulation applies to all sections of the liquor trade, and it is obviously not possible to make an exception in favour of the well-to-do. I am informed that the prohibition of the sale of intoxicants on credit has had a marked effect in the reduction of intemperance, and pending the introduction of the promised Bill the Government are not prepared to annul this Regulation.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while people are in favour of temperance they are not in favour of an uncontrolled Board imposing Regulations on the people of this country which have not been sanctioned as to peace time by this Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware there is a great deal of feeling of that kind, but I think there is also a strong feeling in the House that we ought to derive some lessons on this subject from our experience in the War. All that we ask is that the House should wait until the Bill is introduced.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it seriously maintained that this does promote temperance?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON.

Mr. SWAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when a full report of the proceedings of
the International Labour Conference at Washington will be available; and whether a White Paper can now be issued showing the decisions taken by the Conference?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Information as to the proceedings of the International Labour Conference at Washington has been published in the Press from time to time. The question of presenting an official report will be considered with the delegates of the British Government as soon as they return to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (COM MITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether witnesses who have applied to the secretary of the Industrial Insurance Committee of Inquiry to give evidence before that Committee have in several cases been given no reply; whether it is proposed to refuse to hear witnesses making such applications; if so, on what grounds; whether intending witnesses are entitled to a reply from the secretary of the Committee; and, failing a reply, what steps ought they to take in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware of any case in which no reply has been sent, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any information on the subject I shall be grateful if he will communicate it to me. The examination of witnesses by the Committee appointed to inquire into industrial life assurance has already occupied twelve days, and I am informed that the evidence obtained has dealt with typical cases of hardship and that the Committee have decided that they cannot consider all individual cases to which their information has been drawn. Any communication addressed to the secretary will be brought before the Committee, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether it is necessary to hear further evidence.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is he aware that very few cases have been gone into at all—perhaps a hundred out of thousands?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It depends on what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by "very few." I think a sufficient number
of cases typical of a great number of others have been examined, but I shall be glad, if my hon. and gallant Friend has any cases in mind, if he will put them before the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee on Currency has yet reported; and what steps it is now proposed to take to deflate the currency in this country, in view of the adverse effects of an inflated currency on trade and the cost of living?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Report was placed in my hands this morning at twenty-five minutes past eleven, and I proceeded to attend a conference at 11.30. The hon. and gallant Member will therefore understand I have not yet had time to read it, and I should not like to make any statement on the subject until I have been able to give it the consideration which the importance of the subject requires.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will that Report be made public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; it will be laid as a Command Paper.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in laying the Paper, give an opinion differentiating between inflated credit and inflated currency?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I am called upon to make any observation in laying the Report, which is laid simply as a Parliamentary Paper in the ordinary way.

Mr. SUGDEN: Will there be an opportunity to debate it?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (MANUAL WORKERS).

Sir F. HALL: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if manual workers are allowed to deduct from their Income Tax assessment the cost of travelling to and from their places of work; if so, whether such concession obtains irrespective of their earnings, and whether or not they already receive consideration in some form from their employers in respect of the time occupied in getting to their work, or have fares and subsistence allowance paid
by their employers; if claims have been received from clerical and other non-manual workers for a similar concession; and if, as a large proportion of manual workpeople are earning incomes largely in excess of clerical and similar classes of persons, he will consider as to fixing a limit of income to which the concession shall apply, irrespective of the manner in which the income is earned?

Mr. HAYDAY: 85.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a workman who is compelled to live some distance from his work on account of housing shortage or for any other reason is entitled to an abatement from Income Tax in respect of his railway fares?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A deduction is allowed for the actual additional cost of lodging away from home (up to a maximum of 2s. 6d. per day), or the actual cost of travelling to and from the place of employment, where. owing to the present exceptional conditions, mainly arising out of the War, a weekly wage-earner charged by quarterly assessment is employed at a considerable distance from his home, and necessarily incurs exceptional expenses, either in lodging away from home or in travelling daily to and from his place of employment. This allowance is not affected by the amount of the earnings, but it is not, of course, claimable where the expense in question is not borne by the wage-earner himself. As regards the remainder of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I may say that the general question of the cost of travelling to and from the place of employment has been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question as to whether claims have been received from clerical and other non-manual workers for a similar concession, and if they have been received, and the Exchequer has not granted them, will he say on what grounds the same allowance is not granted to these clerical workers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, or has had any case brought to his notice which appears to be inconsistent with my answer, I shall be pleased if he will send me the case, so that I can look into it, and then I will reply to it.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Government take into consideration the case of clerical workers as a whole, and place them in the same position as manual workers, who are earning in many cases much more than the clerical workers?

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

PROMOTION (STAFF CIRCULAR).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a statement signed by eleven senior superintending inspectors of taxes calling attention to the injustice which they allege they have suffered in connection with recent promotions in the Inland Revenue service; and whether he will take steps to ascertain the facts and merits of the case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the issue of this circular which was, I understand, sent to all Members of the House. No previous representations with regard to the subject matter of the circular had been made either to the Board of Inland Revenue or through them to me and copies of the circular were sent to the Board and to me merely as "an act of courtesy"—to use the language of the signatories. The House will recognise that such procedure on the part of highly placed officials is subversive of discipline and directly opposed to the public interest. Acting under my directions, the Board have communicated with the signatories pointing out the grave impropriety of their procedure and its inevitable consequences, and the signatories have now been given an opportunity of considering their position. If they recognise, as I feel sure they will, that the procedure which they adopted was improper and will present their grievance to me in the proper manner, no further notice will be taken of the irregularity of procedure, and I shall, of course, go into the merits of their case carefully.

ACCOUNTANTS (RECOGNITION).

Sir F. YOUNG: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority the Inland Revenue authorities refuse to recognise accountants who are not members of the Chartered Institute; whether a taxpayer whose return is disputed and against whom an arbitrary assessment is
made is compelled to employ a chartered accountant to verify his figures; and, if so, do the Government realise that a large number of persons who depend upon accountancy for a living are deprived of an important part of their business?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend must be under a misapprehension. The Inland Revenue authorities do not act in the manner suggested in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SERVICE MEN OFF DUTY (FARES).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a substantial reduction could be obtained in the railway deficit by returning to the pre-war system by which the Army, when not travelling on duty, paid the same railway fares as the general public instead of receiving their tickets for one-third of the usual rate under certain conditions as at present; and whether he will take the matter up with the Departments concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 1st instant, he is endeavouring to obtain information which he hopes will be available before the Recess. I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will repeat the question shortly before the Recess.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer often invited suggestions towards national economy, and could he not take the matter up?

RAILWAY WAGONS (SHORTAGE).

Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSON: 87.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to remedy the great shortage of railway wagons which so seriously hampers the trade of the country?

Mr. NEAL: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stated yesterday, he proposes to deal fully with this question at a Conference to-morrow in Committee Room 8 at 6 p.m.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to have a report taken of what he is going to say?

Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport announced yesterday that the conference would be open to the Press.

RAILWAY OFFICIALS (SALARIES).

Mr. D. GRAHAM: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the higher paid railway officials, whose salaries range from £400 to £8,000 per annum, are in receipt of war bonuses ranging from £100 to £300 per annum; if so, whether he will consider the question of increasing the bonuses of the lower paid staff, upon whom the burden of the high cost of living has fallen with greater severity than upon the higher paid officials; whether it is proposed to further increase the bonuses paid to the higher officials; and, if so, whether an opportunity will be given to the House to express its opinion on the matter before such increase is agreed to?

Mr. NEAL: The war bonus received by the higher paid railway officials is limited to a maximum of £300, which is a considerably smaller percentage on their salaries than in the case of the lower paid staff. Improved scales of pay have been agreed upon for the lower paid clerical staff on British railways, and these will be brought into operation, with retrospective effect, when the classification of posts has been settled. It is not proposed at present to increase the bonus to the higher paid officials.

POSITION ON NORTH-EAST COAST.

Mr. T. THOMSON (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, notwithstanding repeated representations during the last nine months of the serious lack of transport facilities on the North-East Coast, the present iron and steel stocks on Tees-side exceed 67,000 tons as compared with 31,000 tons at the end of June, and what steps are being taken to relieve this most serious position of affairs?

Mr. NEAL: From information which has been furnished to me the figure given by the hon. Member as regards the iron and steel stocks in the Tees area appear to he approximately correct. With reference to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Minister of Transport yesterday as to his proposed conference with Members.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that three or four works on Tees-side have been standing, that men have thus been thrown out of employment, and very considerable distress in the district arisen in consequence; cannot the Ministry take some steps to remedy the shortage of wagons?

Mr. NEAL: I am aware that some unemployment has arisen in the sense indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Ministry of Transport are taking all available means to deal with the situation.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the position to-day is even worse than that stated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middles-brough, and will he cause further inquiries—telegraphic inquiries—to be made before to-morrow's meeting?

Mr. NEAL: I shall certainly take care that every possible information is available for hon. Members at the meeting tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to publish the next issue of the statement showing the staffs of Government Departments on 1st July, 1919, compiled from Returns furnished to the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Command papers showing the staffs of Government Departments on 1st August, 1st September, and 1st October have already been issued. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the last (Cmd. 380). The November statement is now in the hands of the printers.

Sir S. HOARE: When will the November Statement be ready?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is now in the hands of the printers.

Sir S. HOARE: Will it be ready in a day or two?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really cannot say, but it is in the hands of the printers and will be published as soon as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend's question suggests that he has not looked at the Intermediate Returns yet.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was only quoting the
actual Title on the first issue of the Paper in order that he should be able to identify it? As a matter of fact, I have followed every one of these Papers with the greatest care.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED MEN).

Captain LOSEBY: 58.
asked the Home Secretary if the Commissioner of Police has been able to comply with the request embodied in the Royal Proclamation calling upon employers of labour to ensure, that 5 per cent. of their employés are disabled men?

Major BAIRD: As the standard of physical fitness required of a police constable is similar to that required in the Army, men disabled for Army service are disabled for Police service; but in the case of the Headquarters Civil Service staff, where the same physical standard is not necessary, the proportion of 5 per cent. is more than maintained.

Captain LOSEBY: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me if it does actually amount to 5 per cent. of the whole; and what proportion of his own disabled men have the police been able to absorb?

Major BAIRD: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question on the latter point. In regard to the first supplementary question, the proportion exceeds 5 per cent. of the total of the staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN IN BUSINESS (MANCHESTER).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now been able to make inquiries into the case of an enemy alien who has returned to Manchester and has been carrying on business in that city in what is, apparently, a permanent business capacity?

Mr. BAIRD: Yes, Sir; and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for giving him this opportunity of removing the misapprehensions with regard to this case. The hon. and gallant Member said in his speech on the Aliens Bill, on 13th November, that he could give two cases in support of his statement that men who have been fighting against us had been already restored to this country, and were settled
in business here. He has since informed my right hon. Friend that the two cases turn out to be one and the same. The Home Secretary has made inquiry, and finds that the case is one of an Austrian who, after full consideration, was given leave to land in the United Kingdom on 7th September for the purpose of re-establishing cotton exports from British firms to the Continent. He was to stay only for a limited period; that period has expired, and he left more than a month ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPATRIATION TO SOUTH AFRICA (SHIPPING FACILITIES).

Mr. HURD: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the Ministry is considering with the Admiralty the advisability of adapting old cruisers, which would otherwise be sold off, for the purpose of the more speedy return home of the South African soldiers now retained unwillingly in this country, and also for the transport of English civilians who have positions awaiting them in South Africa, and are kept idle in this country for want of shipping accommodation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): The possibility of adapting obsolete cruisers for the conveyance of troops was very thoroughly examined in the early part of this year. It was found that none of the vessels available were suitable for the purpose. The matter is again under consideration, as other vessels not then considered have since been declared obsotele. While it is the fact that a large number of civilians are awaiting passage to South Africa, the Shipping Controller is not aware that any South African soldiers are now retained unwillingly in this country for any prolonged period after readiness for embarkation.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS (GLASGOW).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 64.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in Glasgow there are ninety-four police pensioners who retired before April, 1919, whose pensions are at the rate of 14s 4d. per annum; and whether, pending any arrangement by the Government for dealing with this question on a
national basis, permission may be granted to the Glasgow Corporation to pay out of the police rate an addition to the present inadequate allowances?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I am advised that it would not be competent for the corporation to make a payment of the nature suggested from the Police Rate, and I have no power to grant permission for the purpose.

Mr. MURRAY: Is the matter being considered upon a national basis?

Mr. MUNRO: I can only, on that matter, refer my hon. Friend to quite a number of replies which have been given on the floor of this House by nay right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the effect of those replies was?

Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend pointed out more than once the difficulty of dealing with a small class of people which would open up a very large and difficult question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not the time come when this question should be dealt with in all its aspects, and on a national basis?

Mr. MUNRO: I shall confer with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

Sir F. HALL: Is the reply not practically an acknowledgement of the justification of this measure, but that in consequence of the cost the Government are not able to carry it out? Is not that the meaning?

Mr. MUNRO: I would not say that. We must all have sympathy with the men, who have done very great service in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATIONAL RATING (FIFE).

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a communication from the town council of St. Andrews demanding that the various districts of the county of Fife should be separated for educational rating, so that each district should bear only educational burdens properly applicable to that district; and if he proposes to take any steps to bring this about?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, in view of the fact that the whole question of rating was carefully considered and settled when the Education (Scotland) Bill was before Parliament, and as the system adopted has not yet had a proper trial, I do not propose to take any steps at present in the direction indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH FARMERS (TENURE).

Major W. MURRAY: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether an Agricultural Bill creating security of tenure for farmers in Scotland upon certain conditions will be introduced at the same time as the. English Agricultural Bill; and whether, in view of the number of notices to quit at Whitsunday next which have been served on Scottish farmers, the Bill will be retrospective as regards such notices?

Mr. MUNRO: The question of special legislation for Scotland will receive consideration, but I am not at present in a position to give any undertaking in the matter. I may add that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have no information bearing out the suggestion that notices served for Whitsunday next are substantially more numerous than in past years.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Then is it not proposed to give farmers in Scotland security of tenure, though it is proposed to do so in England?

Mr. MUNRO: I think the whole question is under consideration now.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FISH PRICES ORDER (YORKSHIRE).

Captain MOREING: 68.
asked the, Food Controller if he has received any representations from fishermen at Bridlington, Flamborough, or Filey as to the effects of the new Fish Prices Order; and if he will consider favourably a revision of the order, so that these men may make a reasonable living from their industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): No such representations have been received. The Food Controller con-
siders that the new maximum prices afford an adequate margin of remuneration to the fishermen.

SHIPMENTS TO GERMANY.

Mr. DOYLE: 70.
asked the Food Controller if he will give the number of tons of meat, bacon, and sugar now awaiting shipment from this country to Rotterdam for Germany; what was our total shipment of foodstuffs to the latter country during November; and why the legitimate claims of the people of this country are not met, and prices reduced, before those of other countries?

Mr. McCURDY: The amount of canned meat sold by the British Government to Germany, and now awaiting shipment, is approximately. 8,000 tons. There is no meat, other than canned meat, awaiting shipment, and no bacon or sugar. During November the total shipment of foodstuffs sold by the British Government to Germany amounted to 6,427 tons. These sales were confined to surplus stock. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the legitimate claims of this country have been prejudiced by these shipments

OIL CAKE.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 71.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that oil cake has recently been contracted forward from the mills at £10 per ton, and is now being retailed at prices ranging from £22 to £28 per ton; whether he will state what becomes of the intermediate profit in transactions; and if he will state the present cost of such oil cake ex works?

Mr. McCURDY: The Food Controller has no knowledge of any such sales of oil cake as those to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. Certain quantities of palm kernel cake and rape cake have been sold at low prices, but farmers are for the most part unwilling to purchase these varieties, and prefer linseed and cotton-seed cake, the respective prices for which are about £25 and £19–£20 per ton, ex mill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that this extraordinary increase in the price of oilcake is largely due to the confining of the sales of palm kernels to a ring of manufacturers in this country?

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is there any intention of taking control off these goods—oil-cakes in particular?

Mr. McCURDY: I have no information as to the matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) refers. If he will give me any particulars. I will inquire into them, and I will inquire into the matter to which the hon. and gallant. Gentleman (Sir N. Griffiths) refers.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: 72.
asked the Food Controller what steps he proposes to take to reduce the present high price of oil cake, seeing that the abnormal cost of this essential winter foodstuff for cattle is one of the main causes of the prevailing high price of milk?

Mr. McCURDY: The present maximum prices for oil cakes are fixed in accordance with the prices in the countries of origin of the seeds from which they are manufactured. The Food Controller is aware of the influence of these prices oil the cost of production of milk, but is satisfied that they are at the lowest possible level in the existing world conditions of supply.

SUGAR RATION.

Mr. DONALD: 73.
asked the Food Controller whether he will grant an extra half-pound of sugar per week till after Christmas?

Mr. McCURDY: The Food Controller regrets that the supplies available do not permit of the hon. Member's suggestion being adopted.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that grocers largely have in their possession stocks which would permit of this allowance being granted? They have weekly 10 per cent. above their requirements granted, and out of that 10 per cent. they have accumulated stocks which would permit of this.

Mr. McCURDY: It is quite possible that, so far as the distribution of sugar in this country is concerned, there may be stocks in hand with retailers, but, so far as the supply as a whole [...] concerned, I regret to say there is a serious shortage.

Mr. MOLES: If grocers have sugar in stock will the hon. Gentleman see that they are permitted to dispose of it?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir; I cannot give any such undertaking.

PIGS.

Lieut.-Commander DEAN: 74.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that the controlled price of 28s. per score for pigs
bought by dead-weight is being totally ignored by breeders and dealers in all parts of the country; that the average price is far in excess of this; and if he is prepared to take such steps as shall ensure the controlled price being enforced?

Mr. McCURDY: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The-controlled price for pigs sold by deadweight was fixed at 30s. 6d. per score by the Pigs (Maximum Prices) Order, 1919, which came into operation on the 1st December. Instructions have been issued that the provisions of this Order are to be strictly enforced in all parts of the-country.

Lieut.-Commander DEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amount that is-being charged at the present moment is far in excess even of the figure which he has given, and that this difference is being made up of fictitious expenses, which do-not allow the pork butcher to have any margin on his sales?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir; that is the first suggestion which has come to my notice, but I will make inquiry into it.

Lieut.-Commander DEAN: If I am able to bring evidence of this, will the hon. Gentleman be willing to go into it?

Mr. McCURDY: Certainly, at once.

Major HOWARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the control of pigs has reduced the pigs in this country more than 50 per cent.?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir; I am aware that the pig population of this country has been reduced by 50 per cent. I am certainly not aware that the control of pigs is even a contributing factor.

NATIONAL POULTRY INSTITUTE.

Major COLFOX: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture What steps have been taken by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in view of the offer made to county education committees that each county shall appoint a whole-time poultry instructor, for establishment of a national poultry institute on an adequate scope at which instructors can be thoroughly trained in the theory and practice of, poultry husbandry on the farm and as a distinct industry, and for the conduct of experimental and research work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Poultry Advisory Committee, which was appointed by my Noble Friend the late President of the Board, has submitted definite proposals in connection with the establishment of a, national poultry institute. These proposals are now under consideration.

MEAT SUPPLIES (INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. WIGNALL: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Interdepartmental Committee on Meat Supplies appointed in April last has presented a Report; if so, will he state when this Report was submitted; and whether it is intended to publish it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; the Committee reported on the 16th September last. The Report was presented to Parliament yesterday. It is now in the hands of the printers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT, 1919.

Mr. PRETYMAN: 76.
asked what is the cause of the delay in the appointment of the referees under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Until recently there was no case ready for reference to an official arbitrator under the Act. Authority has now been given for the immediate appointment of three arbitrators, which is considered sufficient for the present.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE COLLIERY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. FINNEY: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution and statement issued in effect as follows: That the North Staffordshire Colliery Owners' Association, comprising practically the whole of the collieries in North Staffordshire, view with alarm the announcement by the Board of Trade of a reduction of 10s. per ton in the price of household coal and for coal used in producing gas and electric energy for light and power supplied for domestic and household use, that this will inevitably result in serious loss to the house and gas coal collieries in this district unless immediate arrange-
ments are made for the provision of the necessary weekly funds to provide current wages and to meet the losses incurred; is he aware that at least 40 per cent. of the entire coal output of the district is involved; having regard to the unprofitable results during the period of control, it is impossible for the colliery owners to finance this reduction in price, whether he can state the steps he intends to take in dealing with these matters; and whether he can at the same time state the price at which the companies concerned having forges, furnaces, coke ovens, and byproduct plants, brickyards, etc., can buy coals for the use of these works from their own collieries, and also state the amount of profits realised in each case by these undertakings?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has been drawn to a resolution of this nature. My right hon. Friend has already informed the House that arrangements have been made by the Controller of Coal Mines in consultation with representatives of the Mining Association to finance collieries which are in financial difficulties and cannot otherwise carry on their mines. The prices at which companies owning collieries, forges; furnaces, coke ovens, by-product plants, brickyards, etc., can transfer coal from their collieries to the other Department are fixed by the Controller of Coal Mines on a commercial basis. I regret that I cannot state the profits realised by individual undertakings, as such information is expressly made confidential by Section 4 of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act and Clause 20 of the Agreement scheduled to that Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING AND METAL TRADES.

Mr. TILLETT: 90.
asked if che employers in the engineering and metal trades, directly or indirectly depending on the iron-moulding industry, are guaranteed against loss by a State dole ensuring the full earning power of their invested capital and against losses by strikes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am unable to follow what the hon. Member has in mind as a basis for his question. If he will be good enough to communicate with me I shall be pleased to do what I can to satisfy him. As the question stands, the only answer I can give is emphatically "No, Sir!"

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether any negotiations, formal or informal, are taking place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of France on the subject of a separate Anglo-French Treaty for the defence of France, in the event of the United States refusing to enter into such a Treaty; and whether an assurance can be given that no such separate obligation will be undertaken by His Majesty's Government in view of the fact that the undertaking of a similar obligation by the United States of America was a pre-condition of the Anglo-French Treaty as laid before the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am rather sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend has thought it necessary to put this question. I have no reason to suppose that there is any difference of opinion between the House and the Government. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, the Government will not commit this country to any new obligation until the House of Commons has first had an opportunity of considering it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from that that the news published in France is entirely false?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Some news published in France must be true; my answer is accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS DISPUTE (WALTHAMSTOW).

Mr. WIGNALL: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the dispute in progress at the works of Messrs. Short and Mason, scientific instrument manufacturers, Waltham-stow; whether he is aware that the firm refused to negotiate with the Amalgamated Instrument Makers' Society; that they have discharged some members of the union who had been in the service of the firm for many years; that the main body of the employés have now been on strike for ten weeks; and whether he can take any action to secure a settlement of this dispute?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): Since the beginning of October my Department has been in touch with the parties to the dispute, which I understand
is connected with the discharge of certain workpeople, but it has not been found practicable to bring about a settlement. It does not appear that the case is one in which farther action can usefully be taken.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is it not possible to make some inquiry or short investigation into the case, with a view to seeing fair play for the men who have been discharged?

Mr. WARDLE: A full inquiry has already been made

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major COLFOX: 83.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the increased pensions, approved in the early part of this year, for retired officers of the Royal Marines have not yet been received; and what immediate steps will be taken to put an end to this delay, which is causing disappointment to the officers concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The work of reassessing the retired pay of naval and marine officers has been considerable, and is now, nearly completed. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give use the names of the particular officers to whom his question relates, I will certainly see that their eases will receive capital attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAM TRAWLERS (SHIP-REPAIR ING CENTRES).

Mr. RENWICK: 82.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended that steam trawlers and similar vessels which are now being refitted and reconditioned in the Mersey and other ship-repairing centres shall in future be sent to the Government dockyards for the necessary work to be done; if so, has any estimate been made as to the relative cost of the work in private yards and Government yards; if such estimate has been made, will the work be sent to the yards where it can be clone cheapest and in the least possible time; and, where costs and time are equal, will preference be given to the district in which the owners of the vessels prefer the work to be done?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of cases of vessels for refit and reconditioning not yet taken in hand are, I understand, very few, and will probably be sent to the Royal Dockyards. But any such vessels actually in hand in the Mersey or elsewhere will not be transferred to the Dockyards. Comparative estimates of cost are, I am advised, not possible to obtain, as the work to be done varies in each case. The owners wishes as regards the district in which this work is to be done are met as far as possible, but we have to keep in mind other factors, such as the facilities available and the necessity for returning the vessels to their owners as speedily as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (MOTORS).

Colonel ASHLEY: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that there is a great demand among ex-Service men for motor vehicles, more especially such as are suitable for passenger or commercial hire; and whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to grant special facilities to reputable organisations such as the War Motors Association for the purchase of such vehicles for distribution among those who require them in connection with their businesses?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): Arrangements were made in June last with the War Motors Association for the sale to them of motor vehicles, and facilities are afforded by this association to ex-Service men for the purchase of these vehicles. My hon. Friend will be glad to make similar arrangements with other approved organisations acting in the interests of ex-Service men.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand from that that the Ministry of Munitions imagines that the War Motors Association is satisfied with the treatment they are receiving? Did not the Motors Association quite recently protest strongly against their treatment?

Mr. HOPE: I am not aware of what is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY ACT, 1919.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 92.
asked the Parliamentary Commissioner to the
Forestry Commission whether any progress is being made in carrying into effect the provisions of the Forestry Act, 1919?

Mr. FORESTIER - WALKER: The Forestry Commissioners were nominated on 5th November and appointed by Royal Warrant on the 29th. The work carried out up to the present is as follows: Rules of procedure have been made, the preliminary work of the Commissioners and Assistant-Commissioners has been allocated, the ten-year planting programme has been considered, the planting programme for 1919–20 has been arranged and is being carried out, and steps have been taken to meet the shortage of forest tree seed. In addition, the appointment of consultative committees is proceeding, conferences with certain public Departments have been held in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, schools are being opened for the training of forest apprentices, statistical work is being carried out, surveys are being undertaken, and afforestable land in various parts of the United Kingdom is being inspected with a view to acquisition. An Imperial Forestry Conference is being organised for next summer.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state the approximate number of men that the Department intends to engage in this afforestation; and also will he see that the men are started work at once, without so much inquiry here, there and everywhere?

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: I am not able yet to state the number of men, nor can I state the cost, because the land is not at the moment in our possession—

Mr. THORNE: Pinch it—take it over!

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: We propose to take it over as soon as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove the disqualification of Clerks in Holy Orders and other ministers of religion as municipal councillors." [Municipal Corporations (Qualification of Clergymen) Bill].—[Lords.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government business be exempted at this
day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Ordered, "That the Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20; Miscellaneous War Services (Foreign Office) Vote [presented 17th July]; the Navy (Revised) Estimates, 1919–20 [presented 28th November]; the Army Estimates, 1919–20 [presented 3rd December]; the Civil Services Supplementary Estimates [presented 4th and 8th December]; and any Estimates that may be presented during the present Session be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,044,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay meat during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contribution in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I think, as this is a very large sum, the Committee would like me to give a brief explanation of how the increase arises. I will first give a short summary of the principal increases. There is an increase of £10,000,000 due to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions for the increase of pensions and allowances. That is exclusive of another £2,000,000 which is included in some figures I will give as to the cost of treatment. There are other small improvements in pensions, including 20 per cent. bonus on officers' pensions and various other minor improvements which have been announced to the House from time to time, and which cost £2,000,000 this year There is an increase in the cost of treatment and allowances to men undergoing treatment of £10,000,000. That is due not merely to the increased cost of treatment, but chiefly to the larger number of men undergoing treatment, and to the increased allowances payable to them while they are undergoing treatment. The amount is £10,000,000, but £2,000,000 are due to the Select Committee Report. I gave the amount as £10,000,000 because the £2,000,000 is included in the other figure. There is increased cost of £5,700,000 in pensions and allowances due to a larger number of men coming into pensions in this current year and partly due to the fact that men have come into pensions earlier than would otherwise have taken place because of the speeding up in
the Ministry of Pensions. The sum of £2,100,000 is due to an extra pay day falling in the financial year. Only one day of that week is within this year, but it happens to be the pay day, so that the whole is debited to this year, although six days ought to come into the year 1920–21. Administration, travelling and incidental expenses are increased by £2,200,000. That is a brief summary in very round figures showing the amount of £32,000,000.
I will in a moment give the Committee further information, if they desire it, as to the actual increases and a brief explanation of the reasons, but before I do that perhaps the Committee would like to know what the number of officers, men, women and children is that are now receiving pensions. There is a total of pensioned beneficiaries on one account or another of 2,621,313 persons. The officers and nurses receiving pensions amount to 33,876, and the men of other ranks to 1,025,460; widows of officers, 9,775; widows of other ranks, 179,7112; parents of other dependants of officers, 5,680 of other ranks, 327,820; children of officers and of officers' widows, 9,112; children of other ranks, 1,029,878—and that brings up the total to 2,621,313. The numbers of beneficiaries have largely increased in the last few months, and a good many of the increases in the sub-heads are due directly and solely to this cause. If the Committee will allow me, I will briefly run through the sub-heads giving the increases, and, shortly, the causes for them, and then if any hon. Member has any questions he would like me to deal with in greater detail I can give the information when I reply. Take Subheads A and B, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances and travelling and incidental expenses. There has been a very large increase in these two sub-heads, and I think hon. Members are entitled to know why the administration expenses appear to have gone up so largely. The number of the staff at headquarters and at regional headquarters is 19,759. This is the total staff, male and female, employed at headquarters and at regional headquarters. There are 6,122 men, and of that total 86 per cent. of them are ex-Service men. Of the women there are employed 10,021 on administrative and clerical work. There are employed in connection with the institutions and hospitals, including matrons, nurses and domestic servants at those institutions, 1,591, and there are in the
various offices juveniles—that is, women under eighteen and part-time cleaners—numbering about 1,300.

Mr. HOGGE: Can you not divide them into headquarters and regional headquarters?

4.0 P.M.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I do not think it is material whether they are at regional headquarters or at the London headquarters. I ask the Committee to realise that although the staff has gone up a great deal in numbers they are, not all additions, because we have taken over from the National Service Department the whole of the medical boards and the ex-Service men and a considerable amount of staff connected with those duties. So that this part of the staff is not a real addition to the expenses incurred by the Government, but the expense is simply carried on this Vote instead of on the National Service Vote. In the same way with regard to hospitals and institutions, we are taking over hospitals from the War Office. The expenses of those hospitals which we take over and the, staff employed there, which were formerly borne on the War Office Vote, are now transferred, of course, and are borne on the Ministry of Pensions Vote, so that it is not in any sense a net increase. Let me now deal with the financial increase. The increase under, Sub-heads A and B shows a total of £1,820,000. Of that, just under £1,000,000, or £934,000, is an increase in the administrative staffs salaries and travelling expenses. On the other hand, the whole of the balance of £886,000, although shown under staff, is really an expense of the medical staff which is employed on the hoards which are boarding the men, and also in the travelling expenses allowed to the men for attending the boards That is not, in my judgment, very well grouped. It is all grouped under the head of staff, and we have to carry the odium of a huge increase in the cost of staff when, in fact, the sum of £886,000 does not belong in the ordinary sense to that at all, but does belong to the administrative work of medically examining the men. I will give another figure to the Committee which' may be interesting. In 1917–18 the number of the staff and the expenses of the staff were very much less, and so were the duties that, had to be carried out by the staff. Measuring the expenses of the staff against the duties as represented in the sum of
money which is distributed to pensioners, the percentage of expenses then was 2.21 or 2 1/5 per cent. In 1918–19, when the number of pensioners had considerably increased and the work was beginning to get into its stride, the rate of the expenses on administration account, including travelling expenses, compared with the benefits, was 3.10, or 3 1/10 per cent. To-day it is 3.27, or rather less than 3 1/3rd per cent. So that, although this increase looks very large, it is not an increase which is out of proportion to the amount of work which has to be done. The actual increase that does exist, of something like one-fifth of 1 per cent., is very easily accounted for, inasmuch as the voluntary workers attached to the local war pensions committees have been gradually, to some extent at any rate, dropping off and are being replaced by paid workers, and the additional cost of that is almost enough to account for the difference in the percentage. Moreover, of course, the staff, like other staffs, has had to have some increase in wages and some increase in bonus. Under all those headings it is very easy to account for the apparent increase of a relatively very small sum of one-fifth of 1 per cent. which is shown by the comparison I have made.
Under the Sub-heads C, D, and E, which relate to pensions, gratuities, etc., to officers, there is an increase in the number of cases awarded of 13,000 on the Estimate. That has called for an increased expenditure in the year of £334,000. Under Subheads G, H, and I, relating to widows and children of deceased officers, the number of awards is not beyond what was anticipated, but there is an increase owing to the fact that changes in the scale, including the bonus, have been put into operation during the year. The result is an expenditure in excess of the Estimate of £366,000. Sub-head K deals with officers' relatives. There is an underestimate there of 974 cases. We have had 974 cases more than we anticipated, and that, with the bonus, which applies to these cases also, accounts for the difference of £149,000. The large difference is under Sub-heads L, M, and N, which relate to disabled men. We have had 228,000 cases more than we anticipated. That is due to the very rapid demobilisation of the Army. At the time the previous Estimates were framed it was never supposed that some 3,000,000 men would be demobilised in the course of six or seven months. The result of that very rapid demobilisation has been to throw
upon us 228,000 more claims than we anticipated for the period. It has also had the effect of rendering each claim more expensive, because it matured at an earlier date than was anticipated. The increase altogether under these three sub-heads amounts to £11,719,000. That increase is due as to £6,850,000 to the alterations in the rates of pensions as advised by the Select Committee, and as to £3,425,000 to the increased number of grants—that is to say, to the 228,000 additional awards of pensions or gratuities. The next Subheads are P, Q and R, which relate to the widows and motherless children of deceased men. There we have a very large increase of £6,019,000, £3,300,000 of which is due to the new rates of pensions, £400,000 to the alternative pensions, £560,000 to the extra pay day, £1,750,000 to a larger number of widows claiming pensions than was anticipated, and to another fact which is rather a curious one —some 38,664 war widows have remarried.

Mr. HOGGE: Out of how many?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with that later. That has had this result. As hon. Members know, there is a marriage dowry given of a year's pension on remarriage, and 38,000 year's pensions instead of so many month's pensions have fallen upon us. That has increased quite considerably the amount, of the Estimate which had been put down for widows. I cannot give the total figures with regard to widows, but it is about 216,000. There are now, say, 180,000 widows on pension, and there are some widows, of course, who have died. I have not got these numbers, so that I cannot be quite accurate in the resulting figure. Sub-heads S, T and U relate to dependants of deceased men. They do not call for comment. The rise of £320,000 is due to the extra pay day. The next Sub-head V.1, dealing with treatment, does require some explanation. V.1 shows that the Estimate for treatment has gone up from £7,000,000 in the year to £17,000,000, or an anticipated increase of £10,000,000. That increase is due to two main causes—first, that at least £2,000,000 is due to the increased rates of allowances which are payable to the men while undergoing treatment. Formerly, when a man was undergoing treatment, and therefore unable to work, he was put on full pension rates. At the time when the Estimates were prepared those full pension rates were 27s. 6d. a week; they are
now 40s. for the single men and 50s. for the married men, besides the allowances for children. That in itself, even if the numbers had been what was originally anticipated, would have accounted for a considerable increase beyond the £7,000,000 which was first estimated. In addition to that a great many more men have come on for treatment than was ever expected, partly, no doubt, because many more men have come out and become pensionable. I have already informed the Committee that 228,000 more cases had been pensioned. No doubt that alone would account for a considerable increase, but it does not really satisfactorily account for the complete number who are now under treatment. The number under treatment I can only give approximately. It is between 140,000 and 150,000 men.
A great number of these men are under what is known as home treatment. Home treatment is not really a satisfactory form of treatment in a great many cases. In some cases it is all that can be done, but in a great many cases it is not a satisfactory form of treatment. I am conscious of that fact, and my medical advisers are going into it very carefully in order to see whether some better method of administration of the treatment is not open to us. I confess I am not quite satisfied with the present position, and I can assure the Committee that everything is being done that can be done to ensure that the men get the form of treatment which is best for them and also that the treatment allowances are not abused. There have been cases which have been brought to my knowledge where the home treatment allowances have been abused. It is just as important to stop abuses of that sort as it is to see that men get the treatment which is best suited to their needs. I can assure the Committee that the point is not being overlooked and is receiving the greatest possible care. There is a small increase in Sub-head V.3, for artificial limbs, which I do not think I need deal with. There is an increase in the administrative expenses of local committees of a very considerable amount, due partly to the falling off of voluntary workers and partly to the increase in salaries of the principal officials and even of the clerks employed by the local committees. There is a credit, to which I propose to call attention. There is an anticipated saving of £855,000, owing to the fact that industrial training has been transferred from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour. That is not a
saving to the nation. It is a saving to this Vote, however, because instead of appearing on my Vote it goes to the Ministry of Labour Vote. I do not claim it as a saving to the nation at all, but it is a reduction of the expenditure upon this Vote. I have given the Committee as briefly as I could the main features of the increase, and if any hon. Member has any question to ask with a view to getting more information, I shall be very glad to give it.

Mr. GLANVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain how many married women there are on the clerical staff?

Mr. HOGGE: The Minister of Pensions, as he usually does, has given the House a very clear explanation of the Vote which he is asking the Committee to pass, and I am certain that, so far as the House is concerned, no one grudges any money which reaches the men or the women or the children. Therefore any criticism one may offer or any question one may ask is not directed toward that, but is aimed at the administrative side. The salient feature of this Estimate for the Ministry of Pensions is that the total cost has now reached the sum of £104,899,000, which is exactly a little more than one-half of what the nation required to raise in 1914 to run the business of the entire country. In that year we had the first £200,000,000 Budget, which appalled those of us who were in the House at the time. To-day we have the Minister for Pensions coming here for another sum of £32,000,000, thereby raising his Estimate alone to mare than one-half of that National Budget. The figures which my right hon. Friend gave are extraordinarily interesting. He stated that there were 2,621,313 persons in receipt of pensions of one kind or another. That is a figure which might unnecessarily alarm a great many people, and the public might be under the impression that that is going to be more or less a permanent figure so far as pensions administration is concerned. But I think I am right in saying, and my right hon. Friend will disagree with me if I am wrong, that the real figure to look to is the number of officers and of men and of the widows of officers and men, which together make up a total of 1,248,823. Obviously, the officers who are disabled will remain on the pension list until they die.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Or recover.

Mr. HOGGE: The widows will remain until they remarry, so that the real figure to be considered is not very much over 1,000,000. The other figures which deal with parents and other dependants, and with the children of officers and men, will disappear—in the case of dependants who are parents by death or in the case of children by age, the age being, of course, sixteen; so that within a reasonable amount of time it is fair to say that 1,372,490 of these will have disappeared from the pension list. The point is that we must not be alarmed at the fact that at this stage there are 2,621,313 persons on the pension list. Having drawn attention to that, I propose to adopt the same plan as my right hon. Friend, and go through the items as he did. As the House knows a radical change has been made in the administrative offices. We have had set up in the country a large number of regional staffs in addition to the head-quarter's staff. According to the figures which my right hon. Friend gave, the headquarter and regional staffs number 19,759 persons. I should like to know, roughly, what is the proportion of the staff at headquarters to that in the regions? The reason I ask that is a perfectly obvious one. We would like to know how far the division of the country into eleven regions has resulted in a diminution or saving of staff at headquarters. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Supplementary Estimate he will find some figures which appear rather extraordinary to me. Since the original Estimate was formed, the staff has been increased from 9,000 to 18,000. It has, in other words, been doubled since March or April of the present year—since the original Estimate was made. That Estimate could not have been presented before April.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would rather put it since the end of last year or the beginning of this year.

Mr. HOGGE: If that is the case, then the words "the original Estimate" is not a proper description. We are now considering the Supplementary Estimate for this year.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Since the original Estimate was framed.

Mr. HOGGE: This is a Supplementary Estimate of £32,000,000 to make up what is lacking for this year. Obviously we ought to take the figures for this year alone. However, we will take it that the
original staff in December last year was something like 9,000, and that in December this year it is 18,000, and the reasons given for that increase are first, the quickening of demobilisation, and secondly, the transfer to the Ministry of the duties of the National Service Medical Boards. I would like a little more information on both these points. I quite agree my right hon. Friend is entitled, and he would have been unwise if he had not done so, to increase his staff as a means of expediting demobilisation. He gave us the figure indeed of 208,000 more cases than had been anticipated as a result of that quickening of demobilisation, and I think we would all agree that he should put on extra staffs rather than that these men should be kept waiting for their pensions. But we remember, and this House remembers, the National Service Medical Boards. I remember them more in sorrow than in anger. That was the Department which existed for a long time at St. Ermin's Hotel, and which was presided over by the present President of the Board of Trade. It had a great many salaried officials, many of them in receipt of very high salaries, and part of their duty was to examine men for admission to the Army. These medical boards of the National Service Department, as a matter of fact, provided the right hon. Gentleman with more pension cases than he probably cares to think of. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the medical boards of the National Service Department sent into the Army men who were unfit to serve, and who therefore became eligible for my right hon. Friend's attention very much sooner than—well, I do not think they would have come before him at all if the National Service Medical Boards had done their duty by the country. I feel, personally, that these medical boards in most cases were a gross scandal, and it is true to say that the National Service Department has contributed more to the necessity for this large sum of money we are voting than any other single organisation in the country.
My right hon. Friend says he has taken these people over. I think it would have been far better for him to have pensioned them, seeing that he is the Minister of Pensions. If their abilities to assess a man who is disabled are about as good as their Abilities to consider a man's fitness to go into the Army, then I have nothing more or less than the hugest contempt for their
particular role. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us how much of this additional staff of 9,000 people is due to the expediting of demobilisation, and how much represents what has been taken over from the National Service Department. I am free to admit that my right hon. Friend must obviously take a certain proportion of these 9,000 for the immediate purpose of facilitating the award of pensions to demobilised and disabled men. I would like to ask him one or two specific questions with regard to National Service men. Can he tell the Committee how many medical boards he has taken over from the National Service Department? Secondly, can he say how many medical men are on these boards, and, thirdly, have they been taken over at permanent salaries, have they become members of the permanent Civil Service or are they part-time men, full-time men, or what other arrangements have been made with them? Can he tell us how soon he hopes to be able to reduce the temporary staff he has taken over for the purposes of demobilisation? Can he give us any idea as to the actual permanent staffing of the Ministry of Pensions? Of course, the House and the country demand an efficient administration of pensions, but at the same time hon. Members must be rather alarmed to read that the Pensions staff has increased from 9,000 to 18.000.
I am willing to admit, and always have been, that my right hon. Friend has probably contributed more to the efficiency of the Ministry of Pensions than any Minister who has yet held that post. I am quite clear about that in my own experience, and it is up to my right hon. Friend, as soon as he can, to reduce the staff of the Ministry to such a total as will enable the work to be done efficiently and yet make the contribution to national economy which we all desire. He said, in giving the total numbers, including both headquarters and the regional staffs there were 6,122 men, of whom 86 per cent. were ex-Service men. That is a very creditable proportion, but there are still 10,024 women. I think a great deal of the criticism about women in the Departments has been very unfair. We took advantage of their service during the War, and they did their work extraordinarily efficiently, and they are entitled to their place in the labour and professional market like everyone else. I do not make this point in order to get rid of women, but the mere fact that you still have over 10,000 women in the
Departments leads one to ask the kind of questions I have asked of the right hon. Gentleman
With regard to the rest of the items from C down to U. no criticism can really be made. The House of Commons has agreed to these increases in pensions, most of which were necessary and which are reflected in this Supplementary Estimate. I was rather interested in one figure that the right hon. Baronet gave, and that was the number of women who have re-married since they were in receipt of pensions. Even in connection with the Boer War the large proportion of widows who remarried was rather an extraordinary feature of the situation. The right hon. Baronet tells us that no fewer than 38,000 women have re-married. That is one in six. As a matter of fact, the marriage dowry was reduced in the Barnes Warrant. The original dowry which was suggested in the Hodge Warrant was two years' pension. That was reduced to one year in the next Warrant. The reason given was that the widow's pension was increased from 10s. to 13s. 9d., and a year at 13s. 9d. was nearly equal to two years at 10s. I suggested that it was a mistake to reduce the amount of the dowry, because every woman who gets re-married off the pension list saves a great deal of money to the State. I am not in the least sure that the right hon. Baronet should not look that point up again and see whether it is not worth while restoring the dowry to two years.

Mr. HOHLER: They would want arrears then.

Mr. HOGGE: You never get arrears out of a Government Department, or you are extraordinarily lucky if you do. In any case, this is a pure question of economy. It is better for the race and for the country. I am not in the least sure that it would not pay the Minister of Pensions as a practical proposition to go back to the old scheme of the two years' dowry.
One item which wants a little more explanation than the right hon. Baronet gave is B1. The revised expenditure there is £17,000,000 as against £7,000,000. I asked him what was the number of men who were being treated and he tells us there are between 140,000 and 150,000 officers and men. That means that each of these men is costing about £110 to £120. There is still a considerable amount of criticism about the efficiency of the treatment of
disabled officers. One comes across it over and over again. You find this kind of case, which is a real hardship, that an officer who has been very severely wounded has not obtained a wounds pension from the War Office. I should very much like to understand what the War Office calls a severe wound. It baffles me entirely. I have a personal friend, an officer, who was wounded in action and never got any-wounds gratuity, but spent the best part of £200 in professional fees to doctors and surgeons while suffering from the effects of his wound. My experience in dealing with a large number of cases is that it is impossible to ascertain what the War Office calls a severe wound. Many of them besides being wounded are neurasthenic cases. I am not yet sure whether we have arrived at any adequate method of dealing with this kind of case. The right hon. Gentleman would do himself more justice-if he would say a little more in regard to the progress that is being made in the treatment of officers and men. He asks us to give him £10,000,000 more for the purpose. I do not feel inclined, though I am willing to trust him with the money, to assent to an estimated expenditure of £10,000,000 for the treatment of officers and men unless he can assure us that this matter is really being taken in hand, and that substantial progress is being made.
I regret to see in item an extra expenditure of nearly £500,000 because voluntary workers are falling off in their enthusiasm in working for discharged men. That is a curious commentary on all the speeches which have been made in this House, on public platforms, in the pulpit, and in the Press. It is what a great many of us predicted. The further you get away from the cessation of War, the gratitude of the general public subsides, and it is rather an ironical commentary that the right hon. Baronet has to ask for another £500,000 because people who were very anxious to get men into the Army have not taken the trouble to devote their services to helping them through the local war pensions committees. The right hon. Baronet made a huge mistake in ever parting with the training of disabled officers and men to the Ministry of Labour. I do not think it is well done by the Ministry of Labour. The right hon. Baronet could have done it very much better, and could have observed the whole career of the discharged soldier from his own desk at the Ministry of Pensions. He could have had a chit of the man's life, his training, treat-
ment, and employment, which would have been, in my view, far and away the best way to deal with this. However, the Government has taken this from him. It was the previous Minister of Pensions who allowed it to go away to the Ministry of Labour. That is another indication of how foolish it was ever to make him Minister of Pensions. I am sorry the right hon. Baronet cannot get these men back under his rule. I do not think on page 16 C to E and G are adequately explained. The sum dealt with is £19,379,000. Of this a-mount approximately £12,000,000 is due to the increased rate of pension in respect of disabled men, etc., and of the remainder approximately £3,000,000 is in respect of other changes in the Regulations. That leaves £4,379,000 unexplained, except by the phrase "the balance is due to the increase in volume of the Ministry's commitments."

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The larger number.

Mr. HOGGE: On account of increased demobilisation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes.

Mr. HOGGE: That is not stated. It struck me as rather badly explained. If that means, roughly speaking, the 288,000 men who have come on to the pension list as the result of speedy demobilisation, that explains it, but it would have been better to have put that in there. Is the right hon. Baronet issuing a new Warrant shortly embodying the increases arising out of the Select Committee's Report?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it has been signed and is in course of printing, and will be laid at once—probably to-day.

Mr. HOGGE: One likes to see these things in actual print. Apart from the increases which are bound to come from the increase of the dependent parents' pension, the one thing left, so far as the Committee is concerned, is that the pensions shall be administered as cheaply and as efficiently as possible.

Mr. HOHLER: It is generally realised how well my right hon. Friend hag administered his office. For the longer part of the period, the rapidity with which he got cases dealt with was splendid. It is some disappointment to me that now, in my experience, cases of delay are occurring, and the hanging up of these matters is of very great importance.
I refer specially to a young fellow named Charles Hughes, in whom I am particularly interested. He ought never to-have been sent to the War, but that is another question. He came back a complete wreck. For a period of a year he was a hopeless cripple in Lady Neville's hospital at Brighton, and he has been making slow progress. The pension awarded to him was only 3s. 6d. He is now wholly unable to resume his normal duties; he cannot work. Yet I have been corresponding with the Ministry of Pensions in the case for over six months, without result. The young fellow is still attending hospital. I can get no decision in the case, and he is still on the miserable 3s. 6d. pension. Something ought to be done in this matter. The young fellow is constantly going before boards. I have written numerous letters, but I cannot get the case settled. It is one of the worst cases I know of. I hope my right hon. Friend will maintain the high opinion that is held of his Ministry, about which I hear much praise from men, of all shades of politics and of all classes, and that he will deal promptly with this and other cases and give them the same ready dispatch that cases have hitherto received at his hands.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I. have received a communication to-day which affects the right -hon. Gentleman's Department, and which may affect various parts of the country. It is a complaint from pensioners who are employed in the Post Office service. They complain that pensions are paid out weekly with their Post Office pay. I think that is a very legitimate grievance. We have adopted as our policy the principle that pensions earned in the War should be quite apart from any payment a man receives in common employment. Pension is a matter of right, and has nothing to do with pay, and these men naturally feel that it is going against our policy, and they ask that their pensions should be paid quite separately from what they earn in their employment in the Post Office. I gather that they are drawing their pensions in the same envelopes which include their Post Office pay. Apparently they are the only Army pensioners employed in the Civil Service who are paid in this manner.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS.: Are they service pensions or disability pensions?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I understand they are disability pensions. I hope it is not so

Major MOLSON: I should like to endorse what has been said with regard to boards. I am personally acquainted with the work of the boards, as I was a medical officer during the War and was on a medical board. I would like very strongly to urge the Minister of Pensions that a great deal more attention should be paid to the staffs appointed to medical boards, and more especially to the presidents of the medical boards. I know from personal experience of very bad cases of men sent into the Army who ought not to have been sent at all. Of course, that is too long ago now to correct, but that is probably part of the cause of our heavy pension list. At the present time a great deal more attention should be paid to the personnel of the medical boards. I have only recently had cases brought to my attention in which the medical boards overlooked serious trouble. If a medical board has very much work to do it passes over the cases rather quickly and simply takes a man's statement. An officer or man who really wishes to make light of his trouble does not say very much about it. I have known several cases in which the cases of an officer or a man have not been suitably examined. Only recently I advised an officer to send Ids case forward to the Appeal Board. In Canada, where they have a great many pensions at the present time, they have started the particularly good method of having a specialist travelling over the country and investigating all the cases which are receiving pensions under his Department. That is perfectly right, because in some cases the pensions have to be increased, while in ether cases the Government save a great deal of money by having the pensions knocked off. If the right hon. Gentleman desires any information on that subject I can give him information which may be of value. I confirm the remarks of my hon. Friend opposite that now when the War is over the personnel of the boards should be very carefully revised. It was only just to our brave men during the War, and it is only just to the taxpayers now, because they may be paying too much in many cases.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am grateful to hon. Members for calling my attention to various points, and I think I am pretty lucky in the amount of criticism
which this Estimate has aroused. The hon. Member for the Gillingham Division (Mr. Hohler) has raised an individual case. We endeavour to deal with every individual case that is brought to our notice in the quickest possible time. I am not going to say that there are not some cases of delay, because there are. I do not recollect and cannot pretend to know the details of Mr. Charles Hughes' case, but if the hon. and learned Member will let me have the particulars I will undertake to see that the case is looked into at once. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised a question which, if it is well founded, will require to be carefully looked into. Pensions and pay are two quite separate things, and all through we have intended to keep the pension as a pension of right and not to mix it up with pay. I do not think it is a disability pension of this War which has been dealt with in this way. It may be some service pension or it may be some pension of a former war. I will look into the matter and see whether it is a case within my jurisdiction. If it is a service pension it does not belong to my Department.
The main criticism was raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). He quite truly said that the reason for raising some of the questions was in order to ascertain whether the administration was efficient and cheap. What he wanted to get was efficient and cheap administration. So far as cheap administration can be efficient, I go with him, but I would rather spend a little more money, and I am sure my hon. Friend means that, in order to get administrative efficiency. I do not wish to be considered as assenting to his criticism of the National Service medical boards during war-time. I never had any experience of them, and I am not going to agree with him in calling them a scandal. He forgets that at that time it was necessary to get every loan into the Army who could be of service to the Army. The Army was not confined to Al men, and it is not just because men who were not A1 men went into the Army to blame the boards. It was not their fault. It was a question of policy which has been debated in this House over and over again, and I do not propose further to refer to it. My hon. Friend asked me how many of the 19,759 of our staff are in the regions at the present moment. On the 1st December there were 3,395 in the regions, but I must warn him that those figures vary almost
from day to day, because there are only four regions out of ten which I can safely say are fully established. Scotland is fully established and doing the whole work. Wales is fully established and doing the whole work. There they have got their full staff. I cannot say that a full staff is rquired for the moment. If the work increases they will have to have more staff. In a little time I can tell definitely what staff a region ought to have, and we can lay down definite lines in regard to staffing. Every day there will be more and more sending up from London to the regions of work for the regions, and consequently the regional staff will rapidly extend and the London staff will rapidly decrease.
When the decentralisation is complete we shall only have in London the headquarter directing secretarial staff, and practically the whole of our administrative staff will be in the regions. Of course, one region will be centred in London, and in that region there will be an administrative staff. The headquarter staff for the Ministry of Pensions will be relatively few, under 2,000, by the time we have got the decentralisation in the regions complete. So far as London is concerned, I do not want my hon. Friend to make a mistake. The London region will have a staff independent of the headquarter staff, and the London regional staff will be bigger than the Scottish regional staff or the Welsh regional staff, because it will cover a larger area and many more cases. As to the head-quarter's staff pure and simple, I can say with a certainty that the total staff of the Ministry will be greatly reduced by the decentralisation in the regions. We shall have a very considerable contraction in staff. I do not want to prophesy as to numbers, but I am sure that they will be considerably reduced. To-day the number is swollen because we are decentralising. You cannot take ex-Service men and ask them to do the technical awarding work which has been done by women, without teaching the men, and during the time they have to be taught, which occupies from four, five to six weeks, they are not pulling their full weight. Therefore, our numbers to-day are bloated by reason of the fact that we are taking on the ex-Service men in the regions.
5.0 P.M.
The hon. Member asked me what staff had been taken over from the National Service Department. About 1,200. He asked me whether the boards had been taken over. He does not quite realise
what a board is. They are not permanent Civil servants. I do not think that more than one medical man bas come from the, National Service Department who is a permanent Civil servant. Nearly all the boards are paid by sessional fees, and. they are employed session by session. Last week about 24,000 officers and men were boarded, and the extent of the work is about 24,000 a week. It has come up from 20,000 a month or so ago, to 24,000, and before February we have to be ready to deal with 26,000 or 27,000 officers and. men for boarding each week. The work is colossal, and it is paid by the session. The boards are not permanent. The doctors who are chosen to go on the boards are not in any sense permanent. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Major Molson) asked me to take great care in regard to the personnel of the boards. Now that we have at our command the services of so many medical men who were fighting overseas, we are taking full advantage of them throughout the medical service, both on the boards and as medical referees. We are giving a preference to the medical men who served overseas, and subject to that a preference to those who served in hospitals at home. In that way we are getting men who are experienced in the actual work with the men in the fighting zone, and know the sort of injury and risks incurred by the men. I believe we are getting a sympathetic board competent to do the work entrusted to it.
My hon. Friend expressed the hope that the treatment of both officers and men was being improved. I really can say that it has been improved by reason of the fact that we are now gradually assuming control of the hospitals that are required for in-patient treatment, and we are now using them as centres with, attached to them, places where the men can attend for outpatient treatment, and where necessary they can be ordered into hospital for inpatient treatment by doctors who are specialists in the disease from which they are suffering. In addition we are commencing—we have not gone nearly as fast as I would like—the provision of convalescent treatment and training centres for both officers and men. For officers we have got quite recently, ready to take over, Thornleigh, near Bolton, for the convalescent treatment of officers, in addition to the Sir John Leigh Home. For men we have a fine training centre at Blackpool
Epsom, after being held up by labour disputes for three or four months, is now being converted and will shortly be a most excellent centre for treatment and training; and at Birmingham and Balbriggan we have others in course of preparation. I have no doubt that on these lines, which -my medical advisers are pursuing, we shall have a really satisfactory method of treatment both in hospitals and clinics and training centres which will be well worth to the State the additional Estimate for which we have to ask because we have got to remember that the treatment given to the men, though primarily designed to assist the men, does equally assist to relieve the liability of the State. It is far better to mend the man than to keep him on pension. That is the reason why I have had to ask for this large additional sum.
Question put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS WAR SERVICES (FOREIGN OFFICE).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,488,540 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1920, for the cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services.

Mr. HOGGE: This is a new Service, and I am sure that the Committee will not desire that the Vote should pass without explanation. There are no fewer than six new items which have not appeared anywhere before in the discussion of the Estimates. The first item, "Advance to Persia," is a sum of £4,500 for the maintenance of a guard. This may or may not be desirable, but in any event it is a small sum; but the remaining items make altogether a total of £4,500,000 new money which is asked for without any explanation being proffered by the Government. The first item deals with the supply of foodstuffs to the civilian population of Northern Russia. The amount is over £2,000,000. From the footnote with regard to details it appears that the foodstuffs are not a gift, and that the amount expended on them is to be recovered by sale. I do not know what that means, whether we have given over £2,000,000 worth of foodstuffs to some authority in Northern Russia and that that authority, if we can have any control over it, is going to pay that amount to the British Exchequer when those foodstuffs are sold. With whom
has this transaction been conducted? Who is the particular individual responsible to the British Government for the sale of those particular goods, and how are we going to enforce payment of this £2,190,000? This is marked as a new service—an unclassified service. It is not a revised Estimate, because there was no original Estimate. Does my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) imagine that he is ever going to recover that £2,000,000? Then (d) deals with £120,000 for a Military Mission to the Caucasus. I look at the bottom of the page for details, and I see the same words—Caucasus Military Mission, £120,000. Is it not ludicrous or rather stupid to present to the Committee this Estimate and then to give below, under the heading "Details," the very same words. The House is entitled to know what is the British Mission in the Caucasus, who composed it and to whom was the British Mission sent?

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to explain to the hon. Member that this Estimate is one which was presented last summer and was not taken then. That may possibly save some of the questions which he may have desired to ask. I do not go into the merits.

Mr. HOGGE: I am obliged to you. You are always very useful to members -of the Committee, who really cannot be expected to remember all these things, but if this was presented last July, surely in the interval my hon. and gallant Friend should be able to give us details. Whether the Committee agrees or disagrees with the Vote, we are entitled to know on what the money was spent. Then the next is (e), "Advances to Polish National Committee and General Denikin's Army," and the details are "for funds advanced by His Majesty's representative in Rumania." There, again, I have not the faintest notion of what this means. Here there is a request for £45,000. The next is (f), "advance to provisional Government of Northern Russia," and it is said that part of this expenditure will ultimately be recoverable from Allied Governments. That sum is £1,125,000. To which of the provisional Governments has this money been loaned? From which of the Allied Governments will part be recoverable, and what part will be recoverable? (g) is expenditure in connection with Prisoners of War Department. The Committee is willing to vote anything that is spent for the relief and repatriation of British prisoners of war, and I hope that the amount has been sufficient, that it
has been wisely expended and that the prisoners have been repatriated, (h) is "Siberian Railway, salaries of British staff, British share in Allies' advance to railway administration, for purchase of materials, £1,000,000." What has been the amount of money advanced to Allies for this purpose? Which of the Allies have advanced it? How much of the £1,000,000 is advances and how much is salaries of the British staff? These questions I have asked on the spur of the moment because it seems to me absurd that a Vote for £4,500,000 should go through the Committee without our having some explanation of questions of this sort.

Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): No one regrets more than I do the absence of the Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harmsworth), into whose charge this Vote would naturally have fallen. He is unable to be present to-day, and I am taking the Vote as Additional Under-Secretary, and I shall do my best to answer the questions which will arise from various quarters of the House. I quite appreciate the questions which have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and I shall endeavour to answer them. In the first place, let me remind the Committee that this Estimate was printed with the Votes on 17th July of this year, and it would have gone through the Committee and the House in the usual way—under the guillotine, I admit—had it not been that certain hon. Members asked for an opportunity to discuss it, and the Government naturally, with that courtesy and consideration which I am sure the Government always show to the House—which, at any rate, I shall endeavour to show whenever I have the honour to stand at this Box—withdrew the Estimate from the Closure Votes, and it therefore comes up to-day, not as a new Estimate, not as a revised Estimate, but as an Estimate for miscellaneous war services of the Foreign Office, as set out and printed in July of this year All these items are war expenditure. They are all items that arise out of the War, and most of them are for expenditure during the War itself. I will take the items one by one and give an explanation of each. If I have not at the conclusion of my explanation covered the whole ground, I hope hon. Members will clear up the remaining questions by continuing
their interrogatories, so that we may pass this-Considerable sum of money with intelligent unanimity.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that most of these items were incurred during the War. Will he explain how that is so, inasmuch as the Estimate is for the year ending 31st March, 1920, and the War was over six months before the commencement of the financial year?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Baronet is quite right, and I am also quite right. Part of this money was expended during the War, and part of it since the War. The first item is "Advances to Persia, maintenance of guard on Shiraz-Ispahan Road." I do not know whether there are any hon. Members who have travelled that road, but it is a most important road. It leads from Busra to Shiraz and Ispahan, and it is patrolled by certain native policemen under British officers entirely in the interests of British trade. Here, I can speak with more intimate knowledge as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Oversee Trade. It would be impossible for peaceful travellers or traders to travel over this road which runs over a high range of mountains if it were not for the protection given by these British officers and the gallant men who serve under them. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not quibble at this amount. It is essential if we are to carry on our trade, I hope our growing trade, with Persia.

Dr. MURRAY: Is any toll charged the traders?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope the Empire of Persia is so up-to-date that there is no toll, but there are brigands who are kept out of the way by this guard which is officered by British officers.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the rest of the £2,000,000 He has explained the £4,500 in a very satisfactory and interesting way. Can he tell us anything about this £2,000,000 in addition?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We are now dealing only with Supplementary Votes.

Mr. HOGGE: On the point of Order. If you will look at the unclassified services for the year ending 31st March, 1920, you will see there the estimated amounts re-
quired in the year ending 31st March, 1920, to pay the cost of certain miscellaneous war services. First, there is "Advances to Persia, £2,064,005." That sum has never yet been discussed.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that new services can always be discussed, as they are a new Vote and not a Supplementary Vote for any old service.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If this be a new Vote, of course it can be discussed.

Captain W. BENN: In that case, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I submit that the Vote before the House is one for £4,500, the additional sum required under this Supplementary Estimate. I would like to have your ruling upon that point.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: At the moment I am not quite clear, but I understand that it is a new service. If so, it can be discussed. There is a very strict rule that you can discuss only the supplementary sum, and I hope the Committee will bear that in mind. If this be a supplementary sum, we cannot discuss the whole question, but if it be a new service the Committee has the right to go into the whole matter. I am not quite clear whether it is a new service or not.

Mr. HOGGE: It is printed "New Service."

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the whole of it is a new service. In July a new service was asked for. It could not be discussed, and the Government, with a desire to be nice and kind to the House, withdrew the Vote in order that we might have this opportunity to discuss it. There is now an additional sum added to the old Estimate, but the whole of it is a new service.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is quite clear that it is a new service.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am inclined to regret that this was not guillotined last July. I understood that it was this Supplementary Estimate of £4,500 for this particular road with which I had to deal. If the Committee wish me to deal with the whole of the original Estimate, I must ask them to let me deal with it a little later on in the Debate, because I frankly say that I cannot at the moment deal with
so enormous a question involving the foreign policy of this country. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee I will now deal with Item (c), "Supplies of foodstuffs, etc., for the civilian population of Northern Russia." The position in September of last year in Northern Russia, as the Committee will remember, was a very critical one. His Majesty's Government, in agreement with the United States Government and with the French Government, arranged to send certain necessary food supplies for the civilian population of Northern Russia, including the two regions of Murmansk and Archangel. As very often happens, the burden of the transport and of most of these foodstuffs that were needed by this population which would otherwise have starved was borne by the Government, and the expense, which was large, amounted in all to £2,190,000. There was other expenditure which was met or will be met by the United States and France, but the responsibility that fell upon us amounted to that very considerable sum. This was an appeal to the humanitarian instincts of the Government and the country, and it was a case of sending these foodstuffs to Northern Russia or standing by and seeing the civilian population starve during the actual War. That was the situation which arose, and the Government gave it all possible consideration, and, I submit., did right in doing their best to save this population from extinction, because it would have been extinction during the winter of 1918–19 if these stores had not been sent to that most difficult and helpless portion of the Russian Empire.

Mr. HOGGE: When were they sent?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They commenced to be sent in September of last year, and they have been sent since. That population came through last winter, and I believe now it is not only able to defend itself, but, owing to this summer which has just closed yielding a certain amount of crops, is able to support itself. At any rate, we are not now spending any money upon this particular portion of Russia. This sum represents what we, in conjunction with our principal Allies, France and America, thought was the amount that we should spend to save these people. Item (d) is for the Caucasus Military Mission. It was a Mission that was decided upon at the end of 1917. It was sent to the Caucasus under a very gallant British officer,
Colonel White, and it consisted of a number of British officers. Its business was during the War to enrol on the side of the Allies all the varying nationalities in the Caucasus. The Treasury agreed at the time to an expenditure of £250,000 for this purpose, but only £120,000 has been spent. I am bound to say that this Mission met with the greatest difficulty, especially after the collapse of the old Russian Empire, Colonel White, who was at the head of it, being himself killed. Several men of the British portion of it were captured by the Bolsheviks. The money was spent in paying Armenians, Russian Cossacks, and Mahomedans, as well as in paying the allowances, travelling and other expenses, of the personnel of the Mission itself. May I say here that this money was raised in the Caucasus by drawing bills on the Foreign Office? I think the Committee should know that the only piece of paper which sells above par, then or now, in those parts of the world is a draft on the British Foreign Office, which I think speaks well for the prestige of that Office, and, of course, for that of the British Government. These unfortunate officers command our respect in being sent out under military orders to the most difficult part of the world, where they ably carried out their mission at a much lower cost than that to which the Treasury has agreed.

Captain BENN: Do we understand that we are voting this year money for something that was done during the War?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so; I am bound to admit it.

Captain BENN: It was not in the estimates of the year?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It was in the Miscellaneous Estimates before the House last July.

Sir F. BANBURY: It has always been the custom in this Horse to vote for the service of the year in the year, and it is quite out of order to vote in one year a sum of money which was spent in the year previous. This is the first time it has ever occurred and it is absolutely contrary to all the customs and traditions of this House with regard to financial business. There was plenty of opportunity last year, when there was nothing but Votes of Credit and that sort of thing going, for the money to be spent in the proper way.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have listened to the right hon. Baronet, as I always do, with great interest. This is a Supplementary Estimate which should have been passed last July. If it had been passed last July—

Sir F. BANBURY: Last July is still this year.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is now before the Committee to meet the views of the Committee. If there is anything wrong now it was wrong then. My suggestion is that it was not wrong.

Captain BENN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not quite seized the point. I understand that the custom is at the end of each year to terminate the finances with what is called an Appropriation Act, which regularises all the expenditure of the year according to the wishes of time House. It is not a question of whether this Vote was put down in reserve for Debate this year, but whether the expenditure was incurred two years ago without the authority of Parliament, and whether we are now being asked to pass a Vote in order to indemnify them for an act which may have been an excellent thing but which had not the authority of this House.

Mr. HOHLER: Perhaps the Bill had not come forward.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The money has already been voted. That is what I understand.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not the fact that there is still a Caucasus Mission—a Military Mission in Batum, Tiflis, and the Republic of Erivan?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so; but it is not that particular mission with which I am dealing. If the Committee will permit me, I would like to pass on to the question of the advances to the Polish National Committee and General Denikin's army. These advances were made to the extent of £45,000 by His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest, at a time when it was impossible for him to communicate with the Foreign Office. He, and I think rightly, made an advance of £20,000 to a Polish Committee that was recruiting Poles in different parts of Roumania to assist the Allied cause, and he also made an advance or £25,000 to General Denikin. These advances were made by the Minister
in the name of the Crown, and the two items I have indicated make up the total of £45,000 under item E.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that also last year?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes. I will now take item F—advance to Provisional Government of Northern Russia. This is put down as a loan. It is a loan for which any future Russian Government will be just as much responsible as that Government will be responsible for the enormous advances made to the Russian Empire. I do not put any great store upon it except in so far as I say that I believe the Russians will recover and that these old debts will materialise. This was done during the War. It was also, as nearly all these items are, the result of an agreement between the principal Allies, Great Britain, the United States, and France. This agreement was made by those three Powers with the Murmansk Council, which was a council of Russians. The Council was doing its best to resist the German Coalition, which was at that time pressing harshly on Northern Russia. The Allies made an attempt to set up a purely Russian Government in this region, and in order to do that they had, of course, to find a certain amount of money and to supply equipment, transport, textiles, and various other articles to assist the Government to carry on. Part of the agreement was that the Allies would in no way interfere with the absolute power in internal affairs of this strictly Russian council, and that was carried out. The Allies could not interfere with the payment of wages unless the people were employed by Allied commanders. Part of the expenditure is recoverable from our Allies. Here I must confess that I cannot give in definite terms the parts that will be recoverable, because the matter is still under negotiation. The Allies in this case are the United States and France, and in this case, as in every other with which I have had the honour to deal, the initial burden, and generally most of the burden, falls upon Great Britain.

Mr. HOGGE: And all the loss.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not all the loss; the greater part of the prestige, and certainly not all the loss, in the long run. I hope my explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend from East Edinburgh. I will next take G. Four thousand pounds is
down here for dealing with the repatriation of prisoners of war. The hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) is now in Copenhagen endeavouring to get those prisoners out of Russia. If the prisoners have received the money and other things sent to them they have been well looked after. This expenditure, I am certain, the Committee will not begrudge. It is not too much, having regard to the sufferings of these gallant men. Now we come to the last item, the Siberian railway, and here I feel we are on very strong ground, because we have more Allies in this matter than in any other. It is a matter which arose by reason of an agreement among the Allies, namely, the United States. Japan, Great Britain, France, Italy. China, and the Omsk Government. They set up a railway board. which was responsible for maintaining and opening up the railway from Vladivostok to Omsk, and as far beyond as possible. It was most successful, and improved the railway considerably from Vladivostok westward. The British Government, with the other Governments, felt that this was a proper course to pursue, and the British Government's share of the expense is indicated in the Paper—£1,000,000 and no more.

Mr. ACLAND: Do any of the others provide anything?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes; that is a matter for negotiation which is now going on among the Powers. In these matters it is the honour, although sometimes also the inconvenience, of his Majesty's Government—certainly the inconvenience of some members of the Government—to have to bear the initial burden in these expenses, and then it is a matter for subsequent negotiation to settle the exact amount which will be borne by our respective Allies. The opening of the Vladivostok railway will help to revive and forward British trade. At this particular moment at Vladivostok we have great stores of British goods. They can only be shipped inwards if this railway is made free for these things and for the goods of all other industries. I think the expenditure was justifiable.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think the Committee may congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the extremely able way in which he has carried out his most difficult task. We regret the absence of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harmsworth). I hope his absence is
not owing to serious illness, because I am certain that nothing but illness would have kept him away from the House when we are discussing Estimates of this importance. If it is due to anything but illness, I think he should be here in his place. I myself have no objection whatever to the various items which are in this particular Vote, but I have a very serious objection to the manner in which it has been brought before the Committee. My hon. Friend says that this Supplementary Estimate was brought forward in July, but it does not matter whether it was in July or any month in the financial year 1919–2o, when it ought to have been brought forward in the financial year 1918–19. The ancient rule of the House has, as far as I know, never been broken, namely, that the expenditure of the year must be met by the finances of the year, which is, in my opinion, an absolutely sound rule. To allow a Government to spend money in 1918–19, and then come forward and say in another financial year, "We have already spent the money and we want you to give us authority for something we ought not to have done," is a serious innovation on the financial principles of this House which I hope the Committee will strongly resent. It is possible there is an explanation, and I think the Financial Secretary will agree that the Committee deserve some explanation. If his explanation is that in 1918–19 we were at war, and that it was impossible to settle the various items of expenditure in Russia and that, therefore, under those circumstances the course which has been pursued was unavoidable, then I think that the Committee could not object very much to it. An explanation of that kind ought to be accompanied by an assurance from my hon. Friend that this will not be repeated, and it ought, I think, to be accompanied also almost by an expression of regret on his part that the Treasury were obliged to consent to some of it, which I venture to say is an absolute contradiction to the whole of the traditions of this House and the procedure which has governed finance. At the present moment another place has no power over finance, and it is absolutely essential that nothing which could take away from the power of this House over finance should be permitted. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to make that explanation, and if he does so I shall accept it.

Mr. HOLMES: As I listened to the hon. Baronet describing what we spent, I began
to wonder whether in the title "Miscellaneous War Services." the word "Miscellaneous" belonged to war or to services. The hon. Baronet appealed to us to give him our intelligent unanimity. I am sure he will have the intelligence, but I am not so sure that he will have the unanimity. With regard to the second item he appealed to the House on humanitarian grounds, and I am quite sure from that point of view every Member of the House will agree with him. But I think we should have some further explanation as to whom those foodstuffs were sent and who were made responsible. We are told that receipts from sales will be paid into the Exchequer, but nothing as to the amount. The hon. Gentleman did not explain if the foodstuffs were sent to a particular man or to a. committee or a provisional Government, or whether they were resold or part of them sold and part of them given away. We have really had no enlightenment as to whether we shall recover any of this sum of £2,000,000. The hon. Gentleman dealt with a pride we all shared on the fact that a bill drawn on the Foreign Office would always be discounted about par. How many of those bills are floating about and are likely to come in? Those he mentioned were drawn last year. How many people have the right to draw bills on the Foreign Office and call on them to pay? Is that all stopped now, or are there still people living abroad who have the right to draw bills on the Foreign Office for which this country has to find the money? With regard to advances to the provisional Governent of Northern Russia, the hon. Gentleman said that part of it would be recovered from the Allies, but that the matter had not been settled yet. If we have already put in our claim to our Allies how much is the amount of that claim? As to the advance of £1,000,000 for the Siberian Railway, the hon. Baronet told us that the other Allies had already advanced some money. If they have advanced anything in addition to our £1,000,000, can he say how much? If they have already advanced their own money, they are not likely to give us back some of our £1,000,000, or is it the case that we have advanced the total amount for the railway and have to get something back from the Allies in due course? The most important point is whether people have still the right in various parts of the world to draw bills on the Foreign Office, and that an undisclosed liability always exists
on the Foreign Office and consequently on the National Exchequer.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Before the Financial Secretary replies I would ask him to state quite definitely whether there are any moneys in this Estimate which have not actually been already spent? So far as I understood from the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), the whole of this money was spent before the 1st of April, 1919, and therefore belongs to the financial year 1918–19, and none of it is really an Estimate of what is to be spent in the future. I rose to mention a point with regard to this main new service in connection with Persia. I see it is printed under the heading "New Service," and that there is a sum of £2,064,000. Is that part of the Anglo-Persian Convention, or is it entirely for war purposes during the hostilities with Turkey, when we made advances to the Imperial Bank of Persia in connection with our operations in the Caspian? Are they restricted to war services, or are they part of the advances under the Convention recently made, and to which I understand the Government of India are to contribute a very considerable share?

Mr. ACLAND: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in the reply which he has to make to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who has asked him to state whether it is still the principle and practice of the Government that the expenditure of the year shall be met by the Appropriations of the year. Whether this ought to have been done in this particular case, I think he will feel that those ancient doctrines of Parliament are really out of date nowadays. I think the right hon. Baronet would have put the matter more kindly if he had asked that the debt of the year should be met by the deficit of the year, and that that principle might, at any rate, apply even in these days. I do not think we have been given sufficient reason why this money was not brought to account earlier. As it is, I gather, even though it was spent in the preceding financial year, we now have a sum of £4,000,000 to be added to the £100,000,000 which we know has been spent on one or other of these Russian expeditions. How long it will take to see a clearing-up of the whole of this money which this Empire has wasted in these Russian expeditions we do not know.
I cannot understand wily, after America came into the War, and when it was known that America was less strained financially than we were, we should have continued the practice of providing all, or practically all, the moneys for matters of this kind which our Allies needed. We were told with regard to one of these items of expenditure that two Allies were in question, France and America, and yet we provided all the money and we are still negotiating with our Allies as to what, if any, share should be borne by them. In another case we were told that we had no less than six Allies concerned in the railway to Omsk, yet there again, although the United States of America was one of the Allies, we seem to have advanced the whole of the million pounds and to he still negotiating as to what, if any, part shall be repaid and when, if ever, it should be repaid. With regard to the general policy, I have only this to say. It puzzles me why we should be spending a million pounds in trying to get supplies into Russia at one end, and spending goodness knows how many millions in trying to prevent supplies getting into Russia at another end.

6.0 P.M.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have very strong sympathy with the protest raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and I have no doubt that we shall receive satisfaction on that point from the Financial Secretary. There is one detail on which I should be glad to have a reply from the hon. Baronet representing the Foreign Office, and it is in regard to the Siberian Railway. It was not quite clear from his remarks whether the £1,000,000 which is inserted here is our contribution alone or whether it is the total advance of which we are going to recover a part from our Allies, or what is the extent of our own indebtedness with regard to the whole matter. The hon. Baronet told us that the Inter-Allied support of the Siberian railway administration was successful in producing there an efficient state of affairs, which, amongst other matters, would inure to the benefit of British trade in so far as there was a, large accumulation of British goods at Vladivostok. Now the most recent information which we have from Siberia is to the effect that anything less like an efficient railway administration cannot be conceived than what has been taking place
with regard to the Siberian railways during the last twelve months at any rate, that if anyone had wished long before this recent advance of the Bolshevists to go to Omsk from Vladivostok it meant that he went for a little holiday jaunt that lasted for six weeks at least. That is a very different picture from what has been presented to us by the hon. Baronet, and we would really, I think, like to know what the result of the British expenditure is in this respect, and more particularly in regard to the British goods that were sent to Vladivostok. How many hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of British goods were sent? I know there was a very large amount some time ago left at Vladivostok, but I should like to know how much had actually reached Western Siberia, Omsk, and the rest of Siberia to the west of it, for the relief of the population there, who were in the most urgent need of the very necessaries of life that were landed at Vladivostok. That is one of the real justifications for the expenditure, if there was one, and if the hon. Gentleman can give us the figure of the amounts shipped to Vladivostok and of the amounts that got on from Vladivostok to Western Siberia, that, I think, would carry more conviction to the Committee than any other defence of that particular item of expenditure.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I think I might usefully intervene at this stage to answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Of course, I agree entirely with what he said, and there is no more painful process that a Minister in my position has to undergo than the collection of these Estimates and their presentation to the House of Commons. This particular Vote covers what are called Miscellaneous War Services, and, with all respect to the hon. Member who found fault with that expression, I really do not know what other expression we could have found to fit the case. There are various services in more or less remote fields of war where continuous war expenditure was going on and where it was impossible to estimate from time to time what the actual expenditure would be. The distance of these fields and the difficulty of communication were the direct cause of the accounts coming in so late that it was impossible to get them in any shape into the Vote of Credit, where they would naturally have been—that is to say, the accounts for
money expended before the time of the closing of the Vote of Credit. And so we have this position, that we are presenting an account for sanction to-day that was presented last July for expenditure that is past and completed, and that has taken place during the course of two financial years instead of one.
I quite agree it is a wholly irregular process. It is one that I dislike as much as the right hon. Baronet and my right hon. Friend opposite, and it is one that I hope and believe will not occur again, and I cannot see any likelihood, with my present knowledge, that it can occur again. I know of no similar circumstances, and I can assure the Committee that so far as I am able to prevent it, it will not occur again. The expenditure has all been made. I think, speaking from memory, it had all been made by the time the account was presented in July, bat it only came to my notice just before a batch of Supplementary Estimates were presented in that month, shortly before the end of the Session, and the moment that I saw this Estimate and what it comprised, and the debate that would naturally open up from its presentation, I said, "This Estimate must be withdrawn and kept back till the autumn, so that the House may have proper time in which to discuss it." There is only one more remark I would make before sitting down. This phrase "New Service" is rather misleading, because it only applies to the items from C to H. The amount under A in the original Estimate was actually in the Estimates that were presented at the beginning of the year, and that were passed before the Adjournment in August. I do not think there is anything else on this Estimate that directly concerns me, and I should like to offer my sympathy and my congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend here (Sir H. Greenwood) in the difficult task he has had, all the more that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is away ill and is relying on me to take his Votes this evening.

Mr. HOLMES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what hold the Treasury have upon bills which are drawn abroad on the Foreign Office and subsequently presented for payment?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Vote really would give us an opportunity, I believe, of discussing, if we cared to pursue it, our policy in Persia, and I
draw attention to that because this is the first and the last opportunity we have had of discussing a very vital matter indeed. There have been publications in the Press, and there have been speeches by Lord Curzon at luncheon parties, and so on, but there has never been any statement, to my knowledge, on the floor of this House with regard to our commitments and future commitments, military, financial, and political, in Persia. It is a matter of really first-class importance, and should be explained here in the House, and an opportunity given for debate. It is important, amongst other things, because of the amount of criticism that has been aroused in very friendly quarters in France as to this same Persian policy. That alone made it desirable that there should have been some explanation in this House, as well as the fact that there is a large minority in Persia who are strongly nationalistic and who sent a deputation to Paris and were refused a hearing there, and that this strong minority of very patriotic persons of all classes, including some of the greatest nobles in Persia, are much opposed to the policy pursued by the Persian power that came to an agreement with this country, which has been published in the Press, but never explained to this House. I think it should be noted, therefore, that this New Service Estimate, brought up under rather unusual circumstances, as several very experienced hon. Members have pointed out, is the only opportunity we have of discussing this matter.
With regard to item F, if I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman aright, this was an advance to a Government that was formed to combat a German coalition. I presume he means the Murmansk Government, and I suppose he means the coalition of the Finns and the German army in Finland under Von der Goltz. It is a fact, of course, that. -we had to send a British cruiser to Kola in the Murmansk to prevent the White Finns, the present party in Finland in power, with a few German auxiliaries, from advancing to Kola. It raises the rather interesting point whether an attempt should not have been made to recover this money from Germany, and add it to the indemnity. When we included widows' pensions in the German indemnity, surely we could have said, "This money had to be expended by us because of your action, and we think this should be added, there-
fore, to the debt to be repaid." I think we should certainly have had more chance of recovering it, as events have turned out, either from Germany or Finland, than we shall have from the Government to which it was advanced, because that Government at Murmansk consisted of one Russian general and his officials. He was in no way elected, and there was no sort of constituent assembly or Parliament, and whether this Government will be recognised by the great regenerated Russia, which apparently still looms large in the hon. Gentleman's imagination, is a matter of grave doubt.
Might I also make this inquiry of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? We are asked to vote £1,000,000 for the salaries of British staff and British share of an Allied advance to the Siberian railway administration for the purchase of materials, etc. First of all, with regard to the purchase of materials, was this British material? Was this money spent in purchasing rolling stock in this country, or in Japan, or in America? It is an interesting point. Secondly, is it a fact, as it has been frequently stated, not in this House, certainly, but one has heard it from people who have been out there, that all the stores and munitions which were sent out—first of all, the munitions for military purposes, and also the stores for the relief of the suffering people in Omsk and Tomsk and Irkutsk, and so on—is it a fact that all this traffic over the Siberian railway paid heavy freights, and that we paid the freights in cash or vouchers or bills on the Foreign Office on the spot? In other words, is it a fact that this relief for the population and also these munitions for fighting the Bolshevists were charged at full freights by the Provisional Dictatorship of Admiral Koltchak, and, if so, how much did we actually give him in cash for helping him on his railway, and, if so, should not this come off the £1,000,000? It is a point, I think, that is well worth investigation, and I should be very glad if the Financial Secretary could give me some information upon it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should like to deal with various questions which have been raised, and may I say at once how much I appreciate the indulgence of the House? May I say, first of all, with reference to why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not in his place, that this Vote was put down unexpectedly, and my hon. Friend had to
go away from town this morning on public duty, and was unable to return in time. He would be the last to fail to be in his place to undertake a Vote of his Department, and I am very sorry I cannot deal with the subject adequately, as he would have done. But I would remind the Committee that the whole of this will come up on Report, and my hon. Friend will be here then to meet more adequately than I can any interrogatory that may still lurk in the mind of any hon. Member. With reference to the criticism of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and other hon. Members, that is a matter for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Let me deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). He wanted to know how many Foreign Office Bills were now out, and suggested that there might be a large liability floating against the Foreign Office in various parts of the world. I can assure him these Foreign Office Bills can only be issued by heads of Legations or persons with special powers, or by Consuls, and other public officers abroad within the Appropriation already granted by this House. So that any idea of floating debt in the way of Foreign Office Bills drawn by irresponsible persons can be dismissed from the minds of all of us.
With reference to the points raised in connection with the Siberian Railway, may I say the British Government only joined with the other Allies in dealing with this railway first of all from the military point of view? That was the original purpose of taking over the railway. It is true that the question of trade comes into all questions of railways, and the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenwortby) as to whether any arrangements had been made with reference to the money being spent on British goods, that was done, and part of the agreement was that this money should be expended on British goods, in addition to paying the personnel under British orders. Undoubtedly, wherever there are military operations going on, trade goods must wait their turn, and there is a congestion of goods at Vladivostok. It is regrettable that no one foresaw the great numbers of troops that were going to be massed there when these goods were sent. I hope the military operations of Powers and peoples will soon come to an end in this area, which I believe will be a fruitful area for British trade. This
million is the first charge on the Siberian Railway itself, which is one of the great railways of the world, and I think the charge is upon a good security, and will be paid back with interest. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull wants to discuss the whole of our Russian policy on this present Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the only opportunity we have.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I still hold the view that it does not arise on this special Vote, and I hope it will not be pressed on this occasion, because this question can only be discussed by those who are responsible for Foreign Office policy in this House and another place.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: It is not in order.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: At any rate, it could not receive that elucidation that it ought to receive. I thank the Committee again for the courtesy and indulgence they have shown me.

Colonel BOWLES: I am sure everyone was interested to hear about the £2,190,000 for the supply of foodstuffs to Russia As America was in this with us, and as our financial embarrassments are more considerable than theirs, as they came late into the War, I should like to know how much of the money was provided by America?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought I dealt with that in my opening remarks. This is the amount with which we are to help.

Colonel BOWLES: May I ask if it is an equal amount?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I could not answer that.
Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT Ex CHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, I ought to say one word of explanation on this Vote.
Great anxiety has been felt at the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Pensions concerning discharged men suffering from tuberculosis, and, as I understand, the accommodation in the country is at present insufficient for the needs of these men. This £10,000 is the sum that it was estimated the Office of Works would have to spend in erecting additional sanatoria for the Ministry of Health between now and the end of the current financial year. The whole scheme, which will be discussed later, on the Ministry of Health Vote, and when the Estimates come up next year, will involve for buildings something like a quarter of a million of money, and will enable the Department to treat 1,000 additional patients. The work will be executed with the utmost regard to economy, because we are going to utilise, as far as possible. Army huts, which will be obtained from the Disposals Board, and arrangements will be made with the local sanitary authorities, giving them the option to take over the buildings and equipment at the end of five years on terms very favourable to themselves. This is one of those Votes where the Office of Works are only responsible for buildings as agents for another Ministry, and I hope the time may come before very long when we may hope to get these building Votes in the Estimates for the Department for which the buildings are to be erected.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: There is one question directly connected with the Employment Exchanges, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer it.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think it is in order on this Vote.

Sir S. HOARE: I think it is, but I will wait for your ruling, Mr. Whitley. I assume that the money that is being spent on the Employment Exchanges is the result of recommendations recently made by the departmental committee, and I should like to know what exactly is going to be done. I always thought the housing of the Employment Exchanges in many cases was a public scandal, and I should like to have some assurance on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN: This does not arise here. This only concerns the particular items given in the Vote.

Captain W. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea where these build-
ings are to be erected, what arrangements are being made, and who is to be eligible to use them?

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here. This is only an additional £10,000 for the training of discharged soldiers, in addition to the original Estimates.

Captain BENN: I submit that this is £10,000 to start a new scheme.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to go into details, which can only be dealt with by the Ministry of Health, but, as I understand from the Office of Works, arrangements will be made with local sanitary authorities, who, I understand, will work in close co-operation, and their aid will be sought by the Office of Works in constructing the additional accommodation, which accommodation, as I said, the local authorities will be able to take over after a term of five years on very favour able terms to the local authorities.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it a fact that this scheme comes under the same Vote as the Employment Exchanges? What have the Employment Exchanges to do with this scheme?

Mr. BALDWIN: The sub-head we are dealing with is the insurance (National Health), and these sanatoria under that head, because they concern national health, and in order to be grouped under the Ministry of Health they have to be made under this sub-head.

Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that the real explanation is that these buildings are to be employed, not for the health of discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, but for the training of discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, and the Ministry of Labour thereby conies in. Where is the Minister of Labour? I really think he ought to be here somewhere and attend to his Vote. One Minister has already gone away because he has got an engagement. We have a very efficient substitute. Is the other Minister also addressing a meeting somewhere?

Mr. BALDWIN: I very often agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, but on this occasion I cannot say I do. There may be—I believe there is—a scheme for training tuberculous men. But this particular Vote is merely for the erection of buildings, and
has nothing to do with the training; otherwise it could not come on the Office of Works Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: But this comes under the Ministry of Labour. Ought we not to have the First Commissioner of Works here?

Mr. BALDWIN: I say that he is ill.
Question put, and agreed to.

WHITEHALL CENOTAPH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the erection of a permanent replica of the Cenotaph in Whitehall.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know if I shall be in order in raising the question as to the site on which this Cenotaph is to be erected. I have seen with a great deal of alarm in the paper this morning that certain people are asking the Government to remove the Cenotaph from its present site and erect it in Parliament Square. Personally, I think that would be a most profound mistake. Artistically, it would be a blunder. From the point of view of association it would be a crime. I was one of those Members of this House who actively worked in the Lobbies to urge the Government to keep the Cenotaph as a permanent monument, because it certainly was the striking feature of the Peace Procession; it went to the hearts of the people of London.
I am perfectly certain that the overwhelming sentiment of the people of London is in favour of the retention of the Cenotaph on the site where it is now. On artistic grounds it is unsuitable for some narrow thoroughfare. If you put it by itself in the middle of a square, overshadowed, say, by Gothic buildings like the Houses of Parliament or the Abbey or Westminster, it will detract from its present significance and the present admirable proportion which it bears to the site upon which it now stands. It would be a blunder of the first order if there was any money voted by this House for its removal from the unique site in Whitehall to some other site out in the middle of a square. It is said by some to be in the way of the traffic. What about the statue of Duke of Cambridge a little further on? Or about the statue of Charles I. a little
further on? What is to be said about other monuments in the middle of our streets? As a matter of fact the Cenotaph is situated at a particularly wide part of Whitehall, and I am perfectly satisfied that if you attempt to erect it in any other place, not only would you detract from the fitness of its proportion and design, but you would do a great deal to undermine the sentiment of reverence and association which so occupies the minds of a great many people who connect the erection of that Cenotaph with the Peace Procession. I hope the Financial Secretary will give the House an assurance that he will re-erect the Cenotaph in a permanent form on the present spot, and that His Majesty's Government will not choose another site on which to re-erect it.

Mr. HOGGE: I take it that the money being asked for now applies to the re-erection of the present Cenotaph in a permanent form. I am one of those who, contrary to some who have spoken, think the monument ought to be moved, and I trust that none of the money asked for will be given to the Government unless we get an assurance that the site is to be altered. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to the fact that there were other monuments in Whitehall, the Duke of Cambridge and the statue of one of the Charles.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: The statue of Charles I. at Charing Cross.

Mr. HOGGE: The Charing Cross Charles! Except in the one case, that of the statue of Charles, I have seen no one with any desire to place wreaths on these statues. There are a few deluded people—

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Scotsmen?

Mr. HOGGE: Quite right. Deluded Scotsmen, legitimists, who look forward in the immediate or the remote future to the return of Charles. I should like to meet the argument, if I can, of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I have a great deal of sympathy with the fact that because the Cenotaph was first placed in a particular position that there is a certain amount of sentiment and association which, of course, would be disturbed if it were moved. After all, however, it is quite true that there is no particular signification in that particular spot in
Whitehall. It only so happened on account of the Peace Procession that was being held on that day that it turned out to be the most convenient spot for the purpose of the procession doing reverence to the dead, and of meeting the convenience of public men and Ministers in Whitehall. I think—and I wish my hon. Friend would agree—that the value of the Cenotaph really is that those who mourn their dead and who wish their dead to be remembered should have a quiet opportunity of contemplation beside that Cenotaph. That is the sentiment that one would like to encourage. Hon. Members have watched the crowds who congregate around the Cenotaph. They are of all ages, and of both sexes. To reach the Cenotaph they have to cross a busy street, and face very dangerous traffic. While I do not venture any opinion about the correct site to be adopted—I do not want to do that—there may be something in the architectural argument raised by my hon. Friend as to the proposed site suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey—I am not an advocate either one way or the other—but I really do think there is something to be said for removing that Cenotaph to some other public place which is more suitable and acceptable to the relatives and admirers of the men, where they can lay their wreaths at the foot of the Cenotaph and remain to do reverence. It would be far better to meet the wishes of a. great number of people than to have any unseemly quarrel about particular sites. If I saw any sentimental reason in the present site I would be quite willing to adhere to it. If it marked any historic tradition, or anything of that sort I would agree. I do not think it does. I think you would be doing an enormous service to a very large number of people by contemplating its removal. If we give the Minister this money is not the question of the site irrevocably fixed? If it is, there is no more to be said; but I think there is a great deal to be said from the point of view I am putting forward. This is a kind of thing we ought to look at from the attitude of the people concerned, the parents and relatives of the men who have fought, rather than from any other desire, architectural or of convenience.

Sir F. BANBURY: There is another aspect of the case. What is the object of erecting a cenotaph? I presume the ob-
ject is twofold. First to allow the relatives to place wreaths at the foot of it; and, secondly, that future generations shall know what has taken place now. Speaking as someone who has lost a very near relation in the War, I venture to say that the matter is of more importance than that which appertains only to the feelings of relatives. If I am right in that, what is the place that is most appropriate on which to erect the Cenotaph? I should certainly say where it is now. People who come to London, foreigners, or from Scotland, or any part of the world, come down Whitehall, and, therefore, the most appropriate place, in my bumble opinion, is there. It illustrates what we all want to illustrate, namely, what has happened during the last sad five years. You want a place where the monument can be most easily seen. I do not think it hurts the traffic in the least. The thoroughfare is one of the widest in London. It has no shops on either side for the traffic to step beside; consequently there is no waiting of any description on either side of the street. I have gone about London for a good many years, and, speaking from that experience, I think you could not have a better place in which to put the Cenotaph—assuming that the House agrees, as I think most people will agree, that the real object of this memorial is to put up something which will show our children, our grandchildren, and their children what has taken place in the past five sad years.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Estimate as framed is an Estimate for a replica of the existing Cenotaph on the spot where it now stands. In an answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works on 13th August, it was stated "that the Westminster Council had agreed to the site being so used." It is the intention of the Government to erect the Cenotaph on that spot. Of the sum of £10,000 in the Vote, we are asking for £5,000 to-day to build the Cenotaph in a permanent form. The total amount as given is really £10,200. The extra £200 will be, as I understand, for the provision of adequate light around the Cenotaph at night. The eminent architect, Sir Edward Lutyens, is giving his services in this matter. It is only right that we should remember this, that if, even at this late date, we, in fact, did decide to erect the Cenotaph on some other spot there is no doubt that further designs and plans would have to be obtained, because the design in respect to the particular place under review, amongst
the particular buildings surrounding, would not necessarily be suited to, perhaps, an open space or to buildings of a different type. So I think I may say this, that this particular money that we are voting must be for the Cenotaph on the present position. I wish to make that quite clear.

Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend said that the cost of the Cenotaph is to be £5,000?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are asking £5,000 in this Vote. That will be as much as will be expended in the financial year. The total cost is £10,000.

Mr. HOGGE: I understood the whole cost of the Cenotaph permanently would be £5,000?

Mr. BALDWIN: NO.

Mr. HOGGE: Then what do I understand will be the full cost of the monument, except the £200 for lighting?

Mr. BALDWIN: £10,000.
Question put, and agreed to.

HARBOURS UNDER THE MINISTRY OF TRANS PORT (FORMERLY UNDER THE BOARD OF TRADE).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £195,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of maintaining certain Harbours under the Ministry of Transport and for grants for Harbours.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I shall have to ask the indulgence of the Committee if I am not able to deal with this Vote as fully as I could wish, or give the whole explanation that might be required, for I have to deal with the matter at comparatively short notice. Of the items in the Vote the first is £1,500, which is an extra Vote in respect of Holyhead Harbour. The original Estimate was £7,076, and the revised Estimate, for £8,576, I am advised, is entirely due to the recent award increasing wages and certain war bonuses. The only sum included in the £1,500, which does not come under that head, is £100 for a small cutter which was required. Holyhead Harbour is a public harbour and is maintained by the State. The next item called for more careful and detailed explanation. The original grant for harbours was £450, and
the Ministry are now asking for a supplementary sum of £194,450. I will endeavour to put before the Committee the causes of this increase and the reasons for it. The sum of £750 is in respect of disbursements made for revenue purposes in connection with the Montrose Harbour.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member explain what has been done to Montrose Harbour for this expenditure?

Mr. NEAL: The substantial item is the sum remaining, amounting to £193,000, which is wholly in respect of payments made and which may have to be paid by way of loan to the River Wear Commission. That is the river which deals with traffic from Sunderland and on which the port of Sunderland, particularly in regard to shipbuilding yards, depends for subsistence. The River Wear Commission is a public body established under Statute for the purpose of maintaining that river as a waterway. They are not established for private profit, and they have suffered severely owing to war conditions. The imports consist largely of timber for pit-props and the like, iron ore, and paper-making materials such as wood pulp, and the revenue from those sources declined most seriously owing to war conditions. The export along that river was mainly coal, and the restrictions on the export of coal most prejudicially affected the revenue of the Wear Commission. In the course of the year the attention of the Government has been drawn to the fact that the Commissioners had been reduced to a state, if not of insolvency, certainly a position in which they were unable to finance themselves and obtain the necessary funds for conducting their undertaking. As it was considered a matter of first importance that all the transport facilities by river should be maintained, and that our shipping should be maintained, it was decided to render substantial assistance to the Commissioners of the port for the purpose of tiding over their difficulties, and this assistance has been rendered by way of loans. There has actually been paid up to the present a sum of £43,000 in respect of Revenue payments, and there is a sum of £50,000 required to replace the short-term loan issued by the Commissioners in respect of which they were able to borrow sums through the ordinary sources. They have applied for a further sum for Revenue purposes of £35,142, and that application is under consideration.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is that included in the £194,000?

Mr. NEAL: Yes; all these figures are within the Vote which I am proposing to the House. It is conceivable that there may be further obligations which have not yet been undertaken in respect to this commission, and which may call for the advancing of a further sum. That is a matter which it is within the full competence of the Committee to deal with now or later on, but for this purpose we have put down a provisional sum of £50,000. There is one other sum which goes to complete the total, and that is £15,000, which was a grant, and not a loan, some considerable time ago in respect of the South Pier, which had to be built. I do not know that I am able to give the House any further information. Strictly speaking, I think this matter could hardly be said to be within the purview of the Ministry of Transport, but the Ministry has been asked by the Government to deal with the matter, and it is therefore my duty to submit to the Committee this Estimate.

Earl WINTERTON: This is rather an important matter. This is the first opportunity we have had since the Ministry of Transport Act came into operation in regard to the taking over of harbours to discuss the result. I should like to ask what Department is responsible for the grotesque difference between the original Estimate and the present Estimate?

Mr. NEAL: This expenditure has arisen since the original Estimate was submitted.

Earl WINTERTON: There appears to me, on the face of it, to be an unbusiness-like difference between the original Estimate and the one now produced. What I want to call attention to is that in the comparatively small increase in the case of Holyhead Harbour no less than £1,500 is the result of increased wages. Do I understand that since the Ministry of Transport became responsible for the labour Gill at Holyhead Harbour there has been an increase of wages to that extent?

Mr. NEAL: That was due to a recent award granting war bonus.

Earl WINTERTON: Since the Ministry has taken over this harbour there has been an increase of wages amounting to £1,500, and this seems rather to confirm the fears expressed when the Bill was
before Parliament, that it would result in an enormously increased wages bill everywhere. After all, this is a large increase in a small harbour. I notice the same thing applies to Montrose Harbour. I think we ought to know what exactly is going to be the policy of the Ministry of Transport with regard to this question of harbours. Here we have an isolated proposal to carry out no doubt certain necessary improvements to a harbour under the control of the River Wear Commissioners. I know, and all hon. Members who have a constituency which borders on the sea know, that there are hundreds and thou-hands of cases where money is required to be spent on harbours, and if it were in order I could very easily make out a strong case for money being spent on a certain harbour in my own Constituency.
I do think we are entitled to get from the Minister a statement as to whether we are going to get an opportunity of considering the question of policy in regard to these harbours as a whole. I think the Ministry of Transport policy towards harbours should be considered as a whole. I do not much like one isolated case of a harbour being dealt with by the Committee, because it always presupposes that the Commission in that part of the country have managed to get the ear of the Government while the Commissioners of other harbours have not been so fortunate. I should like to know whether we are going to have more of these Estimates, and whether we are going to have an opportunity of dealing with the whole question of harbour improvements. I also want to know why this additional expenditure was not foreseen at the time the original Estimates were framed. I must express my great regret that the Minister of Transport is not able to be present.

7.0 P.M.

Sir S. HOARE: I agree with what has been said by my Noble Friend, but in my opinion I think the Committee are at liberty to discuss upon this Vote the general question of harbours, for this reason. In the first place, the extension is as regards harbours generally and not any specific harbour. Secondly, the discrepancy between £194,000 and the original Estimate is really so great that it constitutes a new Vote altogether. As the Minister of Transport is not here, I suppose it is no good raising the general question of harbours, but in view of what the Under-Secretary has just said, I take it that the Ministry of Transport is taking the responsibility for this Vote. It has
been asked to undertake it is this House, I should like to know who actually has made this loan. Has the Ministry of Transport funds at its disposal out of which it can make loans to particular harbours? I should have thought, if a Harbour Board or if Harbour Commissioners wanted a loan, they would have gone to some body like the Public Works Loan Commissioners and got it from them. It seems to me highly objectionable that a Ministry like the Ministry of Transport, which is not dealing primarily with finance, should be making loans to particular bodies and to particular commissioners. Before we pass on to the next Vote, I would like, therefore, to hear what is the general policy of the Ministry with regard to these Grants. Is this particular case one of many other cases? Is the Ministry of Transport going to make these loans to particular Harbour Boards? Should it not rather be a matter for the Treasury and not one for the Ministry of Transport at all I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer that question.

Captain W. BENN: I would like to reinforce what has fallen from the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare). It would be rather helpful to those of us who represent docks and harbours to know what body advises the Ministry of Transport in this matter. Obviously, the hardships that have been suffered by some have been suffered by many. It is invidious that one person should claim special consideration for one port. On the other hand, those of us who represent ports find ourselves in great difficulty when we see that one port is receiving an enormous sum and that the claims of other ports are not being considered. By the diversion of trade to the West Coast during the War, owing to the system of convoys, other ports have wanted to borrow money, and they have had to go to the public—the port that I represent has had to go to the public—and borrow money at a certain rate of interest. What rate of interest is charged to these River Weir Commissioners for the money that is lent to them? I would like the hon. Gentleman to say what body recommends this treatment as between one port and another, so that we may know that all ports receive consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I think the Committee are very much indebted to the Noble Lord opposite (Earl Winterton) for having raised this point. I do not wish to draw particular attention to the case of a harbour in my constituency, only with reference to the matter of principle. There is a harbour in my constituency which in the past has received assistance from State funds. I should be very interested to know to whom the harbour authorities ought to apply in the future It so happens that that particular harbour has suffered damage owing to one reason or another, and the time will come when it will again have to apply to some authority for assistance. It appears to me that an entirely new departure has been created by the assistance that has been given by the Ministry of Transport to the River Wear authority, and it is the duty of the Minister in charge of this Vote to explain exactly what that new departure means and in what sense the Ministry of Transport are to take over from other governmental authorities the granting of assistance in these particular cases.

Dr. MURRAY: My constituency is all harbours, all calling for assistance, and I should like to add my appeal to the hon. Gentleman to tell us to whom we can apply.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I regret that I must move to reduce the Vote in order to obtain, if possible, the assistance of the Minister of Transport in dealing with this matter. It is really of great importance, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has stated, there is another point to which I did not refer in my speech, namely, the policy of the Government in lending money to these Wear Harbour Commissioners, not by way of an ordinary loan, or by means of the ordinary procedure through the Public Works Commissioners, or by a grant from the Treasury, but out of money granted to this Department. I can see no reason for giving this money to the River Wear Commissioners any more than giving it to any other river or harbour commissioners. If I wished to be what is sometimes called nasty, I might draw attention to the fact that a member of the Government is member for Sunderland. I think he might be present to give us a rather fuller statement than we have obtained
from the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject. My real reason for moving to reduce the Vote arises from the attitude which I have always consistently taken, whatever Government may be in power, when there is a question of this kind, that where there seems to be an important point of policy involved the Minister in charge of the Department should be present. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman in question is attending a deputation upstairs is really no reason why he should not be present, or rather it is a reason for not discussing the Vote now, and for taking some other Vote and waiting for the advantage of his presence. It is easy enough on an afternoon like this to treat all these Votes in a light fashion, but the Committee will agree that one of the points most strongly made by public opinion outside in all sections of the Press is that it is the duty of this Committee to scrutinise very closely proposals for increased expenditure put forward on behalf of Government Departments. Although the sum may not be large, there is a great discrepancy between the original Vote and the money now asked to be voted, and there is the peculiar fact that it applies only to one harbour, although, as has been pointed out, there are many other harbours which are equally entitled to look for assistance. These circumstances, I submit, entitle us to demand the presence of the Minister.

Sir S. HOARE: The Committee find themselves in some difficulty. Nobody wishes to blame the Parliamentary Secretary for not being in a position to give an answer to these questions. We all know that he has only quite recently been called to his office, and we are quite certain from the ability that he has already shown that if he had been there longer he would have been ready with an answer at once. This is really a question of some importance. My Noble Friend has not raised it in the least with any desire to delay for one moment the progress of these Supplementary Estimates. It does seem to me to be a matter of extreme danger that any big Government Department should be in a position to make grants of this kind to particular localities. It is something that has happened time and time again, particularly in countries like France and Italy, where particular constituencies through their deputies have throughout the whole of a session lobbied in order to get grants.
It would be calamitous if that kind of thing were allowed to happen in the United Kingdom. This really seems to me to be a case in point, a case where a particular locality, for some reason which we do not yet understand, is going to receive preferential treatment. If it gets about that that is the way that the Ministry of Transport are going to carry out their policy, the life of the Minister of Transport and the life of every Member of Parliament will be made a perfect burden. Every Member day after day will receive demands from his constituents to get a loan of this kind from the Ministry of Transport. It is because of that I am most grateful to my Noble Friend for having raised this question. We ought quite clearly to know what is the policy of the Ministry of Transport, and we ought upon this, the first occasion that we have had an opportunity of discussing the question, to protest against this kind of hole and corner loan to a particular locality.

Mr. HOGGE: There is another point which should be mentioned. I am in favour of the reduction of this Vote for the reasons given by my hon. Friends opposite. At the moment I fail to remember—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us—upon which railway line Sunderland is situated. One seems to have a distinct recollection that it is on the North-Eastern system, and, if that be so, there is another affinity between the Grant for Sunderland and the fact that we have an Under-Secretary coming down this afternoon and supporting a Grant for the constituency of another Under-Secretary. The real weight of the argument advanced by my Noble Friend is that everything that has been said by the Government itself, to leave alone outside criticism, on the ground of economy entitles us to the presence of the Ministers concerned. This is the fourth Estimate that we have had this afternoon and only one of the Ministers concerned, the Minister of Pensions, has been on the Treasury Bench. The other Votes have been in the hands of subordinate Ministers. In the last case the Minister in charge quite frankly said that he knew nothing about the Vote when ne got up to explain it. In this case my hon. Friend only got his material a short time ago, but he has made very good use of his time. Let us consider the three reasons why Sunderland is to get this particular Grant. If I remember rightly,
my hon. Friend opposite said that there were three things which used to be imported into the estuary of the Wear, namely, pit-props, iron ore, and wood pulp for the manufacture of paper. On account of the War the revenue from these three articles has very materially reduced. There are several ports in the North-East of England with accommodations for ships carrying every one of these materials, and the distance by railway, say, from Newcastle to any other portion of the country where those goods are particularly required is quite as short, and in many cases shorter, than the railway distance from Sunderland. If, therefore, this Grant is being made because of three particular articles of import this particular estuary has lost in revenue, then obviously the same argument applies to every port, North, East, South, and West, that has lost revenue because things that used to come in have not come in during the War. If that be so, there is great weight in the argument that it is a hopeless way of dealing with this class of expenditure to deal with it by Supplementary Estimate instead of bringing it forward for review in one Estimate, so that a whole day can be devoted to it and the question of policy taken in hand. I think the protest made by the Noble Lord is important enough to carry it into the Division Lobby. First of all there is the question of the absence of Ministers; secondly, there is the important point that this is new expenditure; and, thirdly, it is an attempt to do something without the policy which should govern these things being considered. If the Noble Lord goes to a Division I intend to vote with him.

Mr. NEAL: I make no complaint whatever, indeed, I rather welcome the request of hon. Gentlemen that, in accordance with custom and practice, the proper Ministers should be in charge of the Estimates under consideration. I desire, too, to thank my hon. Friends for the courtesy they have extended to me personally. But the fact is that neither the Minister nor myself knew that these Estimates were coming before the Committee to-day.

Mr. HOGGE: But it was announced last night.

Mr. NEAL: Through some mistake, which I have been unable to fathom at the moment, we were not informed that these Votes—

Mr. HOGGE: Time announcement was made publicly.

Mr. NEAL: May I be permitted to proceed? My task is sufficiently difficult without it being made more so by these interruptions. I repeat the fact is that neither the Minister nor myself knew that these Votes were on the Order Paper for to-day until quite late, and my right hon. Friend was unable to arrange to be present. I trust that that explanation will satisfy the Noble Lord, and I hope be will accept it and not press the Motion for the reduction of the Vote. May I add there is no question of general policy involved in this Vote? Certainly my right hon. Friend would desire to take the House fully into his confidence and ask for its support and submit to its judgment on any question of general policy dealing with any part of the work of the Ministry of Transport. In this particular case a public body found itself in financial difficulty, and the Government bad to consider what line it was to take. Since this Debate has been proceeding I have been able to go a little further in the papers at my disposal, and I find that this question arose so far back as the year 1915 as a Board of Trade question, and certain advances were made and were carried, as I understand, on a Vote of Credit. It is therefore not a question of the policy of the Minister of Transport, who has only quite recently been installed in office under the Transport. Act. I hope hon. Gentlemen will accept this as being a really exceptional case in which it was necessary to give financial support to an undertaking which very urgently needed it. My hon. Friend opposite (Captain Wedgwood Benn) asked as to the rate of interest charged. It is 1 per cent. above the bank rate. I do not know that there is any further point that has been raised in the course of the discussion. At any rate, I hope I have omitted none, and trust the Committee will allow us now to take this Vote.

Major GREAME: I accept unreservedly, of course, what my hon. Friend says about the difficulty in which he finds himself personally. But I think that is hardly a sufficient reason for asking this House to accept this Vote now. As far as I can understand from the explanations which have been given—explanations much more satisfactory from the point of view of personal character than of policy—in the course of some past years advances have
from time to time been made to a particular port authority. My hon. Friend said that the Minister of Transport was not responsible for the policy of making the advances, but that they were made by the Board of Trade. Apparently these advances began as far back as 1915.

Mr. NEAL: The question arose in 1915, and the advances were made shortly after.

Major GREAME: What I do not understand is whether we are now asked to sanction advances which were made in 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918. We have already bad a debate on another question in connection with the Foreign Office Vote, of which, unfortunately, all the Foreign Office knew was that it was authorised expenditure which should have come in in the last financial year. As far as I can see we are now asked to sanction an Estimate which should not only have come up last year, but should have formed part of the Estimate for the last four years. If that is so, I think we are entitled to some explanation from the hon. Gentleman. Naturally he is unable to give it. But we certainly ought to hear from somebody on what policy these advances have been made. We have had a good many debates lately in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appealed to the House to assist him in scrutinising most carefully every item of expenditure and in securing economical and efficient administration. Here is a typical case in which such close scrutiny should take place, and the amount involved is a fairly substantial sum even in these days. As has been pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, the original Estimate was only £450, whereas the revised Estimate is £194,450. I would submit that the reasonable course for the Government to pursue—and I will say nothing as to that piece of staff work which sent the wrong Minister to deal with the Estimates—is to withdraw this Estimate at the present moment and to put it on the Paper at a time when Ministers are able to give more explanations than they can apparently at present.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: It is with some reluctance I speak on this matter. I do not in any way wish to condone the delinquencies of Ministers. I do not represent the port of Sunderland, but I know a good deal about it, and I am sure that the money which has been advanced was absolutely essential for the development of
Sunderland. Up to the present that has been a shipbuilding port, but when there is any slump with regard to shipbuilding then Sunderland is absolutely in poverty. I remember in the year 1906 practically the whole of the workers of Sunderland were in receipt of allowances from the rates, and if by granting this money it was possible to prevent a repetition of that and to assist the development of Sunderland, I believe the policy was well adopted. In my opinion Sunderland can be developed on proper lines, and I trust the Minister will help it in that way. There are many industries that would be of immense importance to vast numbers of people who are living in the country immediately adjoining the port, if only assistance can be given for the development of the place, and I have, therefore, risen to express the hope that the Committee will allow this Vote to go through, because of the absolute necessity for something to be done in the interests of that part of the coast.

Mr. HOHLER: I have listened with interest to this Debate. I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said in regard to this Grant. I do not think it is a Grant to a harbour at all. It is really a Grant or a Loan made to the Commissioners of the River Wear. I do not know the circumstances of the case, but from my experience the duty of Commissioners in regard to rivers when they are navigable is to dredge, cleanse, and scour them. I cannot gather from what has occurred in this Debate that we are really asked to make a Grant for the harbour. It is quite true it is so described in the Estimate, but from all I can gather it is simply a Grant to the Commissioners of the river, and that is a totally different thing. I do not understand, either, that these Commissioners have any powers with regard to any harbours but in connection with their dredging and scouring of the river and maintaining locks they have a right to levy certain tolls upon traffic passing up the river. I want to know what is the real nature of this Grant, and I will put this further question. Why on earth does it appear in an Estimate presented by the Minister of Transport? What has it to do with that Minister, and what right has he to make Grants to River Commissioners? No doubt a navigable river is a highway, but I know of no power in the Transport Act to make Grants to River Commissioners. I can recall no Section which gives any power to do any such thing, and
I would like my hon. Friend to explain under what provision of the Act this money has been granted.

Mr. NEAL: I think, perhaps, I shall do what evidently the Committee desire if I say at once that I am advised there is no necessity for this Vote to be proceeded with to-night, and, in view of the demand for greater information than I can give with certainty or accuracy, I ask leave to withdraw the Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: In order to do that it will be necessary for the Noble Lord to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

Earl WINTERTON: The whole object I had in view when I moved this Amendment has now been obtained. I moved it in order that we might have an opportunity of discussing the Vote with a Minister present who would have the necessary information at his disposal. As I and those who agree with me have won hands down, I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,161,125, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and of the Food Production Department, including certain Grantsin-Aid and Special Expenditure in connection with the Purchase of Pickled Herrings.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have to ask the Committee to authorise a Supplementary Estimate of a net sum of £1,161,125 for the purpose of defraying money which has been expended in giving a guarantee to the herring fisheries. In order that I may make the matter quite clear to the Committee, I will explain the past history of the question. The herring fishery is one of the largest and most important fisheries in this country. Fifty per cent. of the total landings of fish in this country are herrings. The weight of herrings landed in a normal year is about 11,000,000 cwts. The industry employs 15,000 fishermen and
something like 1,600 steam drifters. In addition to that, there is a large number of coopers, curers, and other persons engaged in mending nets and otherwise connected with the trade, who depend upon this herring fishery. One most remarkable thing about the herring fishery is that 85 percent. of the catch is exported. We use for home consumption fresh herrings, kippers, Yarmouth bloaters, and so on, but they only represent about 15 per cent. of the catch. The rest is all pickled in brine—a very thirsty form of food it is—

Mr. HOGGE: It is not used in Scotland.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Scottish people eat their kippers, and so on, but nearly all the pickled herrings are exported to Germany and Russia.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: And whisky follows the herrings!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No doubt it does. In order that we might have a good supply of fresh herrings, kippers, and so on at, home, it was absolutely necessary that, there should be this large export, without which the trade could not possibly live. The value of the exports in the year before the War was no less than £6,000,000. Then, of course, the War followed, and the markets of Russia and Germany were closed. The matter was not so serious to the trade as might have appeared at first, because, owing to the fact that nearly every fisherman joined up—they were a most gallant set of fellows, all of them—the number of ships out fishing was comparatively small. In order to keep the trade going at all, and in order that there should be a supply of fresh herrings for the people at home, the surplus was bought by the Ministry of Food, I think for every year during the War, In that way the trade was maintained. We then came to the period of demobilisation. These gallant fellows, who were employed on the drifters, mine-sweeping, in the auxiliary partrol, the Dover patrol, and so on, came back to resume their occupations. A great many of the drifters which had been employed by the Navy were put back into commission as fishing boats. This difficulty, however, followed: The two normal and regular markets for export were still closed; at all events, although you might still export to Germany and Russia, you could not get payment. The question was, how on earth was the trade to be maintained during this difficult interim period
before the trade resumed its normal position as it was before the War? It was perfectly clear that if these men were to go to sea, if this great army of man were to have employment and to receive wages, some assistance from the Government was necessary. The matter arose, first of all, last summer. There are two periods during which the herring fishery is at its height—one is called the summer season, that is the Scottish season; and the other is the autumn season, which is principally an English season.

Dr. MURRAY: There is a big Scottish fishing in the autumn.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said that the autumn was principally au English season. The herring fishery off the East Coast of Scotland continues right away through the summer, then in October and November the herring fishery is at its height off the coast of Norfolk, when a large man-her of fishermen go out from Lowestoft and Yarmouth and the Scottish drifters follow down and take part. In order to get over the financial difficulties of the Scottish period the Cabinet, on the advice of the Secretary for Scotland, gave a certain financial guarantee to the Scottish fisheries. It was practically on these lines. It was arranged that the Government should purchase all the surplus stock of herrings that were not sold at the end of the Scottish season. That arrangement was made, but it did not work very satisfactorily, the reason being that the arrangement did not provide sufficient for the wages or the earnings of the fishermen. I am sorry to say it is a fact that during the Scottish season, notwithstanding this guarantee, a great many of the fishermen did not really earn a living wage, and when the English season, as I have called it—the fishing which is based on Yarmouth and Lowestoft occurred, we found that unless a further guarantee was given which contained a provision whereby the fishermen would earn a living wage, the fishermen would not be induced to go out. They could not dispose of their surplus. They had not been satisfied with the arrangement made before, and the whole industry would have been held up and, owing to the absence of exports, we should not have got sufficient herrings for the home consumption, because the home consumption of 15 per cent. depends upon the industry as a whole being kept going. It was most important that we should re-
start this industry; it was most important that it should be started on a fair basis, and it was most important that we should make quite certain that in any new arrangement which was made for the autumn fishing season, the fishermen themselves were properly looked after. They had performed miracles of valour for the country during the War, and we could not contemplate the idea that they should be either out of work or should be insufficiently paid for the work they were doing.
The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries therefore approached the Treasury, and an arrangement was made whereby the Board undertook to purchase 600,000 barrels of pickled herrings, that is to say, the class of herring normally exported to Germany and Russia. As part of the arrangement it was laid down definitely that the fishermen should get 45s. for what is called a crap. A cran is one of the many rather nondescript weights and measures we have in this country, and it is the measure applied in the case of herrings. The 45s. a cyan would mean a weekly wage of £2 19s. 6d. The curer was to get a sum which practically represented the cost of curing and nothing besides. Altogether the 600,000 barrels were to be bought by the Government at a cost of £3 Cs. 6d. for a barrel of gutted herrings, or £2 19s. 6d. for ungutted herrings. The Estimate of this expenditure was £2,000,000. The idea was that the Government would buy, in the first place, through a Committee, of which the principal Fisheries Inspector of the Board would be the chairman, and on which every branch of the trade would be represented, and, having bought the pickled herrings for export—leaving, of course, the home trade uncontrolled and open to the ordinary play of the market—the Government would subsequently sell those herrings to Germany, Russia, or America, or to any other market, thereby recouping themselves for the outlay. We confidently expect that every one of these barrels of pickled herrings will be sold. It may be that they will not be sold at once, but, of course, the fishermen could not wait for their money. That is why the Government have had to step in. We feel certain that they will be sold. Although, of course, there is a difficulty in getting cash out of Germany or Russia at the present time, ultimately we hope to get the whole of our money and a profit. We shall get it back in some form or other either in money or money's value.
Any profit that is made is to be divided on the basis of 75 per cent. going to the Government and 25 per cent. to the curers. I am glad to say that this guarantee has been so successful that we have not to come here to-day to ask for £2,000,000 or to ask for the purchase of as many as 600,000 barrels. Subsequent to the establishment of the Committee, which has had great assistance from various Government Departments concerned, and as a result of their operations in sending abroad cargoes of fish, especially fresh herrings, the number of barrels of cured herrings available for purchase by the Government was reduced, with the result that instead of coming here and asking for £2,000,000 in order to purchase 600,000 barrels, I am only asking for a sum of £1,161,000 for the purchase of 350,000 barrels. Though this is the case of a Government Department coming and asking for a supplemental sum, it is in respect of a service which was not anticipated at all when the original Estimates were made. As a matter of fact, we have saved nearly £1,000,000 on the amount originally suggested, and we are asking for less than the original Estimate. If there are any questions which hon. Members would wish to ask about the policy generally, I shall be only too pleased to endeavour to answer them. I wish to make it quite clear that the whole herring industry—with the loss of fresh fish for ourselves and the loss of employment not only to fishermen but ad the others who are dependent on the industry, such as coopers and so on—would have been held up unless we had made this guarantee. It is a purely temporary measure to carry us over this difficult time. Before the trade with Germany and Russia was in any way restored it was necessary for the Government to step in, and I think they have stepped in with very beneficial results.

Mr. ACLAND: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the extreme moderation of his demands. £1,000,000 sounds quite small and moderate as things are nowadays. I quite agree that he has been lucky not to have to make a. greater demand. I gather that the justification for this policy and for entering into this arrangement is a double one. First, there is a prospect, now or at some future time, of selling these herrings to Germany and making a profit on them, which will be paid in some way left rather vague. A great many people in this country will
think it a crime to buy anything from Germany, and, therefore, to sell anything to Germany. If we do not succeed in getting Germany to take these herrings at a profit the Minister in charge will justify the action which has been taken by his Department on the ground that really, even if we lose money on it, the arrangement is justified from the point of view of giving employment to our very gallant seamen at a time of transition.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: indicated assent.

Mr. ACLAND: One thought occurs to my mind on that in the light of a certain Bill which has been attracting attention lately, which there are none to praise and very few to love—the Anti-Dumping Bill. What is the policy which the hon. Gentleman justifies in advance except the policy of dumping into Germany herrings at a less price than the cost of production in this country, namely, the price which has already been paid and given to these fishermen? If it is such a dreadful crime in the Bill I have referred to, why is it an excusable and, indeed, it may be a perfectly justifiable and beneficent matter when it comes to our dumping these herrings into Germany?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not understand. There is no question of dumping. I do not know that there is going to be any loss made, but I should third certainly not. I should say we should make it large profit.

Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Gentleman definitely agreed, by nodding across to me, when I made the suggestion that even if we were going to lose on our deal by dumping into Germany at less than it cost us here, it would be justifiable for other reasons.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I imagined the right hon. Gentleman meant if we lost on the deal because we could not, dispose of the number of herrings. I did not think he meant because we were selling at less than the cost price.

Mr. ACLAND: It is the internal price in the country of origin, which is presumably the amount which has been given to the people who caught the herrings. I stick to my point that one Minister of the Grown is justifying in advance a policy which may result in selling these herrings in Germany at less than they have cost while the policy of other Ministers of the Government is to denounce anything of that kind as little short of high treason.

Dr. MURRAY: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the success of his policy in trying to re-establish the herring industry. It was quite justifiable to depart from the ordinary practice. He rather depreciated the qualities of pickled herrings as food, and seemed to suggest that in no part of this country was it regarded as food. It was simply food for Hums. Pickled herring is a food for kings. There is no article of food I know of which is in some respects preferable to pickled herring. I am not ashamed to admit that I have had it myself. I had it to-day. In the Highlands of Scotland, in the South and West of Scotland and all through Ireland it is one of the staple articles of diet, and if it were more generally extended to darkest England you would not have so many diseases as the result of beef-eating and evil habits of that sort as those of us who practise in England have met with in our career. If they ate more pickled herrings, the English race would be much healthier than they are, and would very soon come within easy reach of the standard of health which we find in the Western Isles of Scotland. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appear in a white sheet for having detracted from the character of pickled herrings as food for civilised man. As to creating a thirst, it need not do that at all. Anyone who has an interest in creating a thirst can eat pickled herring at a certain stage, when it will create a thirst, but there is a way of dealing with it so that it will suit all tastes.
It is a splendid food—no doubt an acquired taste, but one which might with advantage be acquired by many people who have not acquired it. There are many parts of the country where the fishing industry has not yet been properly re-established owing to the disturbance created by the War, and which largely depends upon this pickled herring business. The principal markets for pickled herrings are Russia and Germany and there is also a large and growing market in America. One of the principal conditions of the success of the industry would be peace with Russia. In Russia we have an inexhaustible market for pickled herrings, and there is nothing which will conduce to the success of the industry all round the British coast, from Yarmouth to Shetland and from Aberdeen to Stornoway, than having settled conditions in Russia. Then the hon. Gentleman's help would not be
necessary; but on behalf of the industry I thank him for the help he has given, and congratulate him upon the success of this expenditure.

Captain W. BENN: I have had a case brought to my notice of a British company which exported a large quantity of herrings to Hamburg but found when they got to Hamburg that they could not get through into Germany. I do not know what was the reason for that. I did what. I could, to help to get the food through. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the facilities at the other end for these herrings when they get abroad, especially to Germany, which is no doubt wanting this sort of thing, and whether in this Vote any provision is made for seeing that the market is rapidly re-opening?

Mr. C. BARRIE: I agree with everything that the hon. Member (Dr. Murray) has said. The trade had to be supported and put on its legs, which was simply a question of tiding over a short time to enable the fishermen to get a start again. I doubt very much whether the Government will lose a single penny on the deal. They will probably make money, and I hope the success which the Government have achieved in helping the fishermen so far will be an incentive to them to help them further in the future and give them further guarantees for the winter fishing if that be necessary.

Mr. INSKIP: I agree entirety as to the desirability and wisdom of helping these men to re-establish the industry, but I am not sure what is meant by the purchase of the herrings from the curers at flat rate prices or why the curers, having been guaranteed against loss, which I gather has been done in paying them practically the cost of curing, should have a share in the profits. These curers have made very large profits in the past out of the industry and it would have been quite sufficient to purchase the herrings from them at the cost of curing them. Why they should be entitled to make a profit out of the arrangements which the State has made to re-establish the fishing industry, for their benefit as well as for that of the fishermen, I am rather at a loss to know.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I thank the Committee for the kind way in which they have received the proposal, but I really cannot go into some of the questions which have been raised which have noth-
ing to do with it, especially the great question of the blockade of Russia and Germany. Those are questions which must be addressed to other Departments. We hope the trade will be restored and the sole object of the guarantee is to get us over this very difficult transitional period. With regard to getting the herrings into Germany, the Committee I mentioned which is carrying out the scheme and undertaking the sale of these barrels of pickled herrings is no doubt making arangements for their disposal in Russia, Germany, America, in the Mediterranean and wherever they can. Every possible step will be taken to reopen those markets without which the herring industry cannot go on. The fact that we get herrings here at home is due to the fact that we are able to export this large quantity. This is by no means a beneficial arrangement for the curer, who gets the very smallest possible profit. It represents a sort of bargain between the Government and the curers, and I think the Government gets the best of the bargain. They said, "If there is any profit over and above what the curer gets in the first instance, if the Government not only gets the difference of rate but makes a profit, it shall have three-quarters and the curers shall have one quarter."

Dr. MURRAY: Do the fishermen get any?

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No. The fishermen are guaranteed 45s. a cran, which comes to £2 19s. 6d. a week, which figure, I believe, entirely satisfies the fishermen. I am sorry if I have been disrespectful to pickled herrings, and I am glad to hear from the hon. Member (Dr. Murray) that pickled herrings are a very healthful food. I shall endeavour to imitate his example, and to stave off old age by eating Scottish pickled herrings. He said pickled herrings are a food for kings. It is well that they are also a food for other people or there would not be a very big demand for them. I thank the Committee for the manner in which they have received this Vote.
Question put, and agreed to.

SECRET SERVICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

Mr. A. SHORT: When a little while ago I asked some questions and offered some criticisms on the purposes to which this fund was put, I was told by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin), in his most charming way, that it was not customary to explain to the House the purposes for which the fund was expended, or to indicate in any way what those purposes were. In view of the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and the ultimate setting up of the League of Nations, I am inclined to think that it may be necessary to revise our views concerning the exploitation of money for purposes associated with this fund. I believe it is regarded, in the first place, as a diplomatic weapon to shadow representatives of other nations with a view to getting information which would serve the interests of our own country. I am by no means certain that the time has not arrived when we might review that policy, and if we are going to remove some of the doubts, suspicions and fears which have ever been the concomitants of war, it would be well, perhaps, if we hesitated to expend such large sums of money upon secret services. Apart from the diplomatic use to which this fund is put, there is a growing volume of opinion in this country among the working classes, particularly the organised workers, that this fund is now being used for purposes foreign to the purposes for which it was originally used. We do know that during the War spies were employed in our workshops, paid by the Government, and we are firmly of opinion, and it is a growing opinion, that there are still similar servants being employed in one capacity or another—on the one hand appearing to be of the most revolutionary character, on the other hand appearing to be the legitimate advocates of reform in the workshops and in our social life, and securing the confidence of the workpeople, and on the other hand undermining the characters and reputations of trade union leaders, thereby weakening trade unions in this country. We are of opinion—I hope the suspicion is unfounded, but there is a growing volume of opinion that it is well founded—that some of these people are employed by the Government, or that they are subsidised in some way by some secret agency or some secret fund.

Mr. BALDWIN: To-day?

Mr. SHORT: To-day. Not only during the War but during the present period. I would remind the House of the case of Mr. Watson. I would not use my privileged position to offer any comment, or to enter into the merits or demerits of Mr. Watson's action, but quite recently we were told by the Home Secretary that he had been paid by the Government for some information which they had found useful, and which we presume affected seriously the economic and industrial position of the workers of this country. We are beginning to wonder if Mr. Watson is a typical case, and if he was paid from this fund, and who is being shadowed now. Are we, the leaders of the trade union movement, who sit on these benches, and who have won our way to the House of Commons, being shadowed? Are we also the victims of the detective and shadowing methods associated with this secret fund? I could conceive of nothing more despicable, nothing more degrading, and nothing more demoralising than that the public funds of this country should be used for the purpose of shadowing people who are engaged in legitimate practices in accordance with the Constitution of this country and in accordance with the law of this country. While I know the hon. Gentleman will be unable to tell us for what purposes the money is spent, I should like him, if he possibly can, to give us some assurance that this fund is not to be used in future, as we think it has been used in the past, for the purposes I have attempted to indicate.

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps before I reply to my hon. Friend I might call the attention of the Committee to the amount of this Vote. The money which was spent on what was called Secret Service naturally assumed considerable proportions during the War. We find that in the years 1917–18 the total sum voted in the financial year was £750,000, and it rose to to its highest point in 1918–19, when £1,150,000 was voted. It is a very satisfactory feature of this Vote to find that in the year 1919–20, when we are necessarily dealing, as I had occasion to observe on a previous Vote this afternoon, with remnants from the War, the total amount asked for has dropped from those very large figures to £400,000. I have every confidence that next year will see another substantial drop. The pre-war figure on this Vote was a very small sum. It was, I believe, less than that of any of the great countries of Europe, and complaint
has been made in this House by men in responsible positions that the very small sums that have been expended on this Service in past times had on occasion been very detrimental to the interests of this country. I remember, for instance, Lord Salisbury saying at the time of the Boer War that if we had not been so niggardly in the expenditure of Secret Service money this country would have been Wetter warned of the actual position of Boer armaments, and so forth, than was the case when the War broke out.
Now I come to the points raised by the hon. Member. Being of a very simple and candid nature, I always feel a difficulty in having to stand here and, when charges are made, having to say I am quite unable to answer them, or not being able to say whether such charges are, in fact, true or not. Any clever Member of this House, by making a series of charges against this fund, could, by the process of exclusion, if I were able to affirm or deny them, get at the exact direction in which the money was spent. It is very easy for me in one way to defend this Vote, because I have no more information than the hon. Member as to where 6d. of the money goes to. Perhaps some of the older members of the Committee will remember that about ten years ago there was a small advance of 10 or 20 per cent. of the amount voted to Secret Service purposes, and no less a Minister than Mr. Asquith, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, rose in his place and used these words:
In making these grants for Secret Service, Parliament expressly waives its right to the explanation to which it is otherwise entitled in respect of the grant of public money. To give such explanation would be to defeat the object of the grant.

Captain W. BENN: What was the amount of the Grant that year?

Mr. BALDWIN: It was about £50,000. That was the average sum about ten years before the War. In the years preceding, it would be about £35,000 or £40,000. Naturally, from my position at the Treasury, I am anxious to see this amount as small as possible, because I do not Know where it goes, and I do not know what we get for it, and, as a careful financier, I always like information, if I can get it, m both these points. To that extent it is an unsatisfactory matter to me, and it would be a source of greatest satisfaction to me if we could bring this Vote down to something like a normal limit of expenditure. I was instrumental in getting this
amount brought in as a Supplementary Estimate, and not putting in a large estimate at the beginning of the year and getting it through at one sweep, because I was very anxious that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of seeing at half-yearly intervals how this Vote was going. I had also some hope that by taking a smaller sum for the first Estimate and taking a Supplementary Estimate, it might have a salutary effect on those responsible for the expenditure of the money. I am sorry that I can say no more. I have said all that I am able to say, and with that I must leave it to the judgment of the Committee to grant this sum.

Major BARNES: After the charming speech to which we have just listened, one does not like pressing a Minister who is so willing to tell us all he can, but who is prevented from giving us all the information we desire. Speaking as a new Member unaccustomed to these Votes, I should like to know if the hon. Member could tell me if the phrasing on the top of the Vote is the usual phrasing? It is spoken of as a Supplementary Estimate to defray the charges of His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services. I do not know whether the word "other" is imported into this year's Estimate, but it is calculated to arouse the suspicions that have been expressed by the hon. Member on my right. One can understand, though one may deplore, the fact that in our foreign relationships we may have to spend this Secret Service money, though I have often wondered whether we got any real value for it. The principal purpose, so far as I could understand, is to enable a number of people like William Le Queux to write more or less entertaining novels about the adventures of those who are engaged in the Secret Service, who seem to be known to the writers and to a great many others. If the Minister is not able to tell us the expenditure of this money, he might at least be in the position to give the assurance that this money is not being used in any way for the purpose of carrying on a system of espionage against organised Labour in this country.
Whatever the purpose of the Secret Service Fund may have been in the past, cannot think that it has ever been employed for a purpose in respect of which very great suspicion is felt throughout the industrial world. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has forgotten or can
not answer the point put by my hon. Friend, not as to the particular destination of any of the money, but as to the general policy of its expenditure. That is a very proper point to put in discussing these Estimates. I can well understand the Government refusing to indicate in what particular direction the money may be employed in our relationship with other Powers, but I cannot think that there can be such a change in the policy of the Government that the money which has been used in the past for circumventing the intentions of possible enemies of the State, can now be employed in anticipation of any trouble which they may have with people in this country.

Mr. BALDWIN: There is nothing new about the form of this Vote. It has appeared like this for many years—I could not say offhand how many—but there has been an annual Vote for Secret Service in the widest sense of the word certainly during the whole of the last century. I should be only too pleased to answer the hon. Member if I could, but, as I have said, I have no knowledge of the destination of any of the Secret Service money and I can say no more on that subject. One point which may be of interest to the hon. Member is that the only check which the House of Commons has over this money is that it gets the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it has been expended on the authority of a Minister.

Major BARNES: We do not get which Minister.

Mr. BALDWIN: Quite so. That is all the House of Commons does get. The lump sum goes before the Public Accounts Committee, but it is not separated; and though the demand has been made in the past to specify the offices on which the money has been disbursed, a predecessor of mine about twenty years ago, Mr. Hanbury, said that this information never was given and he did not think that it ever would be given I am very sorry that I cannot accede to the request of my hon. Friend, as I always like to give the House every information in my power.

Captain W. BENN: Though it may have been the practice in the past not to inquire into the use to which the Secret Service Fund was put, it is impossible for the Committee of Supply to abdicate its right to make inquiries and suggestions on that subject. It has an absolute right to ask
how much has been voted and where it has gone. The request of my hon. Friend to know how much, if any, of tins Secret Service Fund is employed on the home front raises a very important point. I do not know whether there is anything material in it or not, but I do know that suspicions have been aroused that the whole of this sum is not used merely in connection with possible designs of our foreign enemies. Now as to the amount. This is eight times the amount of the Secret Service money which was voted before the War! Now that the War is over, what can be the purpose of employing these agents? During the War I served most of my time as connected with Secret Service work, and I have got the most wholesome contempt for it. It is not a pleasant office, but if you get an efficient officer at work it is quite obvious that there is no limit to the amount of money which he can expend, and expend extremely efficiently, as far as the office is concerned. As to whether you always get value I have the very gravest doubt. That is as to the work abroad. Now, as to the position at home. It would have been very much better, in view of the fact that the Government are asking the House to vote eight times as much money after Peace has been declared as was voted before the War started, to give us some assurance that no part of this money is being employed for Secret Service at home.

Mr. ADAMSON: I can understand the desire of the representative of the Government to refrain from giving information with regard to the disposal of this money, but the point raised by my hon. Friend is one of very great importance to the Labour movement of this country. My hon. Friend pointed out one case in which evidently there had been money expended, and for all we know there may be many more cases. If money is being expended in that direction we are entitled to an answer. The Secretary to the Treasury has said that he does not know where a single sixpence is spent. Surely there is someone who can tell us before we part company with such a large sum as £200,000. Is it possible for some of his colleagues to give the information?
Question put, and agreed to.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £103,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31s day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £849,329, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Captain W. BENN: It would be quite impossible, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, to pass without comment this large Vote to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I shall not make the least apology for addressing the Committee at some length on the work of the Constabulary in carrying out the present policy of the Irish administration. I would like to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether we are to be favoured with the presence of the Chief Secretary. We have had a, series of able representatives of different Departments to-day. I do not want to move to report Progress on account of the absence of the Chief Secretary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I regret to say that my right hon. Friend cannot be present. He was here in the House until quite lately attending a meeting of the Cabinet. He cannot he present now.

Captain BENN: Do I understand that the Chief Secretary is in the precincts of the House?

Mr. HENRY: He was until quite recently.

Captain BENN: He was until, quite recently, and then when he found a discussion was about to take place on his own administration in Ireland he found it impossible to be present. Surely it is a matter as to which the House is entitled to some explanation. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is able to defend the Irish administration which causes this expenditure, but it does seem the very greatest slight put upon this Committee that the Minister responsible for this Department, although he was present until lately within the precincts of the House, should have absented himself now. I think it is a most improper course, and if I do not move to report
Progress it is because I do not wish to trouble the Committee. I feel very strongly about the state of Ireland, and I could wish to have had the honour of addressing the Minister who is responsible, or largely responsible, for that state of things. I will ask for the patience of the Committee in dealing with this subject, because it is a very important and a very painful subject. Let me say at once that no one could speak without respect of the difficult and painful work which is carried on by the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have not the least intention of criticising them as officers carrying out their duty. The people I do intend to criticise are the people who are responsible for their acts, the people represented by the right hon. Gentleman. By leave of the Committee, I am going to read out some of the things that have been done by the Irish Constabulary by the orders of Dublin Castle, and if it so happens that some of the details are inaccurate and that the learned Attorney-General intends to rise and say, "You are wrong in this, or in that," I can only reply that I have asked the Chief Secretary whether he would let me have, in answer to questions, details of these arrests and charges, and that he replied with indignation that his police were much too busy to give information of that kind to the House. So I have had to rely on what information I could get from the newspapers. It has been collected bonâ fide, and I submit it as being accurate; but if it is not accurate the charge does not lie at my door, but at the door of the Irish Office, which refuses to disclose to this House the sort of thing that is going on in the unhappy island across the Channel.
Let me tell the Committee in the first place something about the general state of crime as it exists. Everybody knows that Ireland is a singularly crimeless country in the ordinary sense. It has repeatedly happened that the learned judges in their charges to the grand juries have referred to this, and, if it were not that. I do not desire to wander too far from the work of the constabulary, I could quote instance after instance where their lordships have referred to this fact. Mr. Justice Gibson, at County Wicklow Assizes, said that as far as the general state of the country was concerned he was informed that it was the usual pleasing experience of judges of assize to find it in its ordinary peaceful and satisfactory condition. Mr. Justice Ross made similar remarks in 1918,
and Mr. Justice Madden also. Throughout recent years I have found numerous comments of the Lord Chief Justice on the crimelessness of Ireland, as we understand crime. I will speak about political crime in a moment. Now I come to what the police have been doing under the protection of the Castle. Here are some of the eases I have collected: A youth sent to gaol for a month for whistling derisively at the police; four men and a boy, aged thirteen, arrested for taking part in a concert at which national songs were. sung; two girls arrested at Clonmel for giving their names in Irish; a man arrested in Dublin for selling flags and giving his name in Irish; a man sentenced to two months for singing seditious choruses; a man given two months' hard labour for taking part in a concert at which seditious songs were sung; a man tried by court-martial and given two years' hard labour for reading out a manifesto issued by the Republican party declaring the right of the people of Ireland to free speech. Here is a case of a number of men who got a month each for singing the Soldier's Song. Here is a case of a boy called McGinn, aged sixteen, who got a month for carrying a Sinn Fein flag. It was in Tipperary where I saw rows of cottages, every one having nailed to the chimney stack a little stick for the purpose of carrying a Sinn Fein flag. Here is the case of a boy called Pat MacGabe who got a month on 17th of October for whistling derisively at the police. It is absolutely time that some of the facts as to Ireland were made known. The condition of affairs in Ireland is so infamous, and I make no apology for using this word, that it is absolutely essential to have some daylight let in upon it. Here is a case of three Members of Parliament, Members of this House, who were on the premises in Harcourt Street when the Sinn Fein office was raided, and they got three months criminal imprisonment each for unlawful assembly since, as the Committee knows, an assembly of more than three persons is an unlawful assembly.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate, and I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that we must keep inside what the Vote deals with. We could not, therefore, on this Vote discuss the general policy of the Irish Government. It is necessary to re-mind him of the fact because other hon.
Members might wish to reply to him, and I must protect the Committee from a general discussion.

Captain BENN: I shall not refer to any case in which the action has not been taken by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that in itself will so limit the discussion as I think to prevent the danger which you, Sir, very properly wish to guard against. Here is an order made and enforced by the constabulary which provides that in any area in Ireland people may be required to remain within indoors within such hours as may be specified. That is curfew. That does not apply to Sinn Feiners or Nationalists only but applies to everyone in Ireland, and to loyalists, so-called, as well as everybody else. There is the case of the police taking possession of a sports field and suppressing a hurling match, which is a very common event in Ireland. I have been told of a case where the police and military arrived on a field and held it all day in order to suppress a hurling match which was taking place down the lane all the time. Here is a case of eleven girls who were selling flags in aid of the Gaelic League and were arrested by armed police. Here is a case of five girls arrested by the police and sentenced to four days' imprisonment in Mountjoy Criminal Gaol for collecting for the Irish Language Movement. Here is the last case with which I will trouble the House, although the mass of material is so great that it is almost impossible to deal with it in the limits of time. It is a case of three girls arrested in Dublin and charged with collecting for the Irish Language Movement, and each sentenced to one week's imprisonment in Mountjoy Criminal Gaol. Those girls, as well as the other five refused to recognise the authority of the Court. Their crime was that they had been selling flags on behalf of the Irish Language Movement. That is some of the work of the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary for whom we are asked to vote this sum of over eight hundred thousand pounds.
Some of the people the police arrest are charged with having seditious literature. When that charge is made of course everybody feels, "Oh, well, if a person has got seditious literature it is right he should be arrested and it is only in the interests of public law and order that the constabulary should do their work." What is meant by the
right hon. and learned Gentleman when he talks about seditious literature? Two postcards have been reproduced in a London paper which have been suppressed by the police in Ireland as being seditious and they are perfectly harmless cartoons showing up a little the state of affairs in Ireland. I have got here some seditious literature which has been suppressed by the police. What is this seditious literature? It is a book called, "The Grammar of Anarchy," and it contains nothing from cover to cover but quotations from associates of hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench delivered during the time of the threatened Ulster rebellion. Do not let this House be taken in by camouflage about seditious literature. Of course there are other cases with which I am going to deal, but a large part of the work in which these constables are employed is this sort of conduct, instances of which I have given to the House. Now I come to another case. There was a man arrested only the other day for participation in the so-called German plot. I fancy Mr. Pierce McCann, one of the Members for Tipperary, was brought over to this country and lodged in gaol, where he died, in connection with the German plot, and not a tittle of evidence has ever been produced that there ever was a German plot, and the Lord-Lieutenant of the day, Lord Wimborne, had no knowledge of it, and I rather fancy he said he never heard of such a thing and did not believe it existed.
I come to another point which is perhaps the most important of ail in the work of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that is the use of them in the suppression of fairs and markets throughout the whole of Ireland. I will give the Committee some instances of this part of the constabulary's work, 29th September, 1919, markets suppressed in many parts of county Tipperary. 4th October, the Lords Justices refused a permit for the holding of a fair at Clonmel, and military and police were posted at the entrances to the town to prevent any attempt to hold the fair. Wednesday, 8th October, armed military and police occupied the approaches to Thurles to prevent cattle coming into the monthly fair. 15th December, a deputation consisting of Tipperary magistrates waited on General Williamson, in connection with the restrictions upon fairs and markets in Tipperary. General Williamson replied that the fairs and
markets in Tipperary did not interest him in the slightest. All he had to do was, on request, to send soldiers to help the police. He had written to Dublin asking the policy of the Government and the answer he would give to the magistrates. He got a telegram from the Commanding Officer stating that no useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation. So I could multiply many instances. Here is a case, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, of action of the police. On 22nd October the pig market of Tipperary was suppressed by armed policemen, who opened the market pens and drove the pigs into the street. The old-established November Fair at Nenagh was suppressed by military and police, and there are many other similar eases. What is the purpose of employing the Royal Irish Constabulary in suppressing these fairs and markets? People come into the town even if the market is suppressed, and all that happens is that the wretched people are prevented by the police from carrying any foodstuffs into the town. An hon. Member opposite does not believe that, but it is so, and I am a personal witness of it. I have stood in a street in Tipperary, and I have seen a little girl driving into the town with a little donkey and a barrow, and I have seen one of the right hon. Gentleman's Royal Irish Constabulary—I do not suppose he liked the job—accompanied by three soldiers with steel helmets and one sentry with a steel helmet and a bayonet, stop the little girl in order to see whether she was carrying foodstuffs in her little barrow. Another case came to my notice where a poor old woman had gone out of Tipperary to pick blackberries, and on returning she was stopped by the police, who made her tip the blackberries out in the road because no foodstuffs were allowed to enter into the town.
What is the purpose of that sort of thing? Are you maintaining law and order by fatuous measures of that kind? Are you producing in Ireland the state of mind that will support law and order? Of course, I know what the right hon. Gentleman will say. It is the usual thing trotted out on every occasion when Ireland is mentioned—namely, "Look at the crime in Ireland!" We even had it in the Father O'Donnell case. The Secretary of State for War was amazed that we should raise that case when there was all this crime going on in Ireland. Let me say plainly that I would never criticise the
voting of any money to suppress crime. Crime is an abominable thing, an atrocious thing, and the people who commit crime are the worst enemies of the country on whose behalf they think they are acting. But crime is not confined to one side, nor is violence, and it is precisely the use of these powers, and the purpose for which they are used, that provoke the outbreaks to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. What has been the history of the last two or three years in Ireland? It has been one long succession of increased severity, new repressions: first of all, the proclamation of one district under the Crimes Act, then the Proclamation of another district, then the general Proclamation of the whole of Ireland, then arming the police with hand grenades, then preventing anyone from using a motorcar without a permit, and then this perfectly senseless and wicked policy of preventing, in an agricultural country, the people who grow the stuff from bringing it into the towns. Is it a matter for surprise that, step by step, with every piece of repression there has been a new outburst of disorder? Of course, there is. I have no figures from the Irish Office, because they will not give them to me, but the figures of arrests that I have collected from the newspapers are roughly as follows: 1917, 719 arrests. The right hon. Gentleman and his associates say, "More armed force to keep them under"; result, 1918, 2,600. More force, more tanks, more aeroplanes, more troops; result, 1919, 7,600. Is it not perfectly obvious, if indeed we did not already know it a priori, that the policy pursued and the use of these men for that policy merely provokes the very disorder it professes to do away with?
Let me say this in conclusion. Public order in any country does not rely on the ultimate sanction of force. The Bolshevists have got the police, but we do not believe that the Bolshevists will remain in power, because we are convinced that the public opinion of Russia is opposed to that government; and it is not the possession of the Royal Irish Constabulary by the right hon. Gentleman which gives him the real power to maintain law and order in Ireland. What would give him the power to do what this Vote seeks to do would be public opinion in Ireland, and, instead of relying on that or using that to support the police, as it does do in this country, the right hon. Gentleman step by step is alienating it. It is not only Nationalists or Sinn Feiners, it is
Unionists, it is returned soldiers. The other day in Cork the Comrades of the Great War passed a resolution condemning the action of the police. I take it that the men who went from Cork to fight for the Empire are entitled to our gratitude as much as we give our gratitude, and most readily, to the men who went from Ulster. I only wish the men who went from Ulster to fight in the Great War had included the Galloper, who did not gallop so far, however, as that.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the mark.

Mr. MacVEAGH: On a point of Order, Sir. How do you come to take Parliamentary cognisance of who the Galloper is?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was not in reference to that observation that I called the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the latitude he was taking I have interrupted him because of the considerable latitude he has been taking for the last few moments.

Captain BENN: I am grateful, Sir, and I shall conclude what I want to say. It is not by taking swollen Estimates for the constabulary that the right hon. Gentleman will maintain law and order in Ireland. The only way to do it in Ireland, or in any other country where a white people live, is by treating them with justice and giving them liberty and freedom.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has done a public service by raising this Debate to-night, and I join with him in the protest he made at the absence of the Chief Secretary. We have conducted several Votes through Committee to-night, and in every case it has been an Under-Secretary who has been in charge. I say this with every respect to the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that bench, but here is a case where the most vital issues are concerned, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having been within the precincts of the House, runs away as soon as the time for this Debate approaches. I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has very rightly in his speech drawn attention to a long series of so-called crimes in
Ireland for which the Royal Irish Constabulary, acting under the direction of the Irish Executive, have imprisoned many people in that country. I remember a case which was not cited by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which was almost more ridiculous than any of these to which he drew attention to-night, and that was the case of a gentleman who owned a motor cycle and who was arrested and his motor cycle taken away because it was suggested that he was going to use that motor cycle for an illegal purpose. All I can say in regard to these cases is that the whole situation would be comic if it were not absolutely tragic. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has shown, the snowball grows, the molehill becomes a mountain. He drew attention to the fact that in 1917, 1918, and 1919 the more the Government put into force their system of so-called law and order the more crimes there are and the more likely is it that that state of affairs will continue. There is no question that the Ministers will never be able to settle this problem until they grasp this fact. It is not discontent in Ireland which has produced coercion, but it is coercion which has produced discontent and crime. I repeat that the hon. and gallant. Gentleman has done a public service in drawing attention to this terrible state of affairs in Ireland. The Government uses force, and it is daily compelled to use more and more force. Why? Because it has not the sympathy and support of public opinion in Ireland behind it. Until this travesty in Ireland is put an end to, that state of affairs will continue, and crime will go from worse to worse.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I desire to associate myself with the observation that has just been made by my hon. and gallant Friend in appreciation of the public service which has been rendered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Bean) in opening this discussion. There is nothing that produces a worse effect on public opinion in Ireland to-day than the feeling that, although the country is being held by an Army of Occupation, and the people are being dragooned in a most merciless way, practically no voice is raised in England in protest against it, and for that reason I welcome the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend, because it will tend to remind our people at home that there are still in this country friends of Ireland, and friends of liberty, who will raise their voice in protest against the outrages which day by day are being com-
mitted in Ireland by the authorities. It is customary with the Government and with its spokesmen on every possible occasion, even when the subject has nothing whatever to do with the peroration, to conclude their speeches by talking about the state of crime in Ireland, the number of murders which have taken place and the numbers of policemen who have been shot. I think every Nationalist in Ireland, everybody who has been associated with the party to which I have had the honour to belong for many years, and which is here at the present time, although in reduced numbers, will understand me when I say outrage, and, above all, outrage in the form of murder, fills us with loathing and horror. We do not believe any good cause can be served by acts of that kind. But we do not reserve our denunciations entirely for the murderers of the policemen. It is a most unfortunate fact that during the past five years more civilians have been murdered by military and police in Ireland than there have been police and military murdered by civilians.

Mr. MOLES: No!

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am not talking about the Rebellion.

Mr. MOLES: The Rebellion was in the last four years.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The hon. Member is quite right. I should have said the last three years. I am more concerned about the administration of the present Government. We cannot now move to reduce Votes for money spent in bygone years, but we are entitled to show how the money in Votes now will be used, and I do not think my hon. Friend will contradict me when I say that more innocent civilians have been killed in the last three years in Ireland by the police and military than there have been police and military killed by civilians.

Mr. MOLES: I entirely challenge the proposition.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Questions have been put in this House by Member after Member, and I have made very careful calculation, and the total of civilians killed—absolutely unoffending civilians who were not breaking the law—exceeds the number of policemen killed. That does not justify the killing. I am not suggesting that for a moment, but I do say when we
are heaping, as everyone is inclined to-heap, denunciation upon murder in every shape and form, that denunciation should not stop at the murdered policemen, but the official murder of civilians should also be condemned. I raised in this House myself the case of a young man in one of the parishes in Tipperary who was going to a police barracks, and a young country bumpkin of a policeman shot him there, although he was only going to tell them at the barracks that there was some sort of disturbance going on in the village. That boy was shot at, and the Government would not allow the policeman who fired the shot to be placed under arrest, or even to be suspended from duty, and it was only after questions had been raised in this House that the Government gave an order that this man was to be placed under arrest. Then what happened? Instead of putting him upon his trial, the Government decided that there was no primâ facie case against the man, and refused to proceed with the prosecution. That cannot be denied. Similarly, in the case of a man who was shot dead in County Clare by the military. He was a deaf man; he was attending to his own cows in his own field, and he did not hear the warning that was given by a soldier, and was shot dead. No soldier was put on his trial for that. We know who the soldier was.

The CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. MacVEAGH: I quite agree. I have no right to discuss the acts of the military. But what I complain of is that when policemen are known to break the law they ought to be put upon their trial the same as civilians. I think my hon. Friend will not quarrel with that doctrine. The position in which we find ourselves placed in Ireland to-day is armed occupation by the Government. One of the most horrible things I ever read is the supply to the police of bombs—hand grenades—and the training of them to use them. Has any Member of this House-ever heard of such a thing in any civilised country? I venture to say it is absolutely without precedent. It is not as if you had armed bodies of men engaging in conflict with the police and military. It is a case of using these hand grenades upon unarmed mobs, upon unarmed crowds, when the slightest disturbance occurs. Not only that. I read the other day a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Manchester, in which he defended the present administration in Ireland, and claimed
that in taking steps in ensure order and good government in Ireland the Government has not gone beyond the necessities of the case. Within half an hour of reading the report of that speech in the "Times," I picked up a local paper called the "Neagh and Tipperary Vindicator." Let me tell the Committee two of the things I read in one issue of this provincial weekly paper. The first is the Goold's Cross incident. What happened was this. Two farmers were to arrive. The police were standing on the platform as the train came in, as they do in these days, and they did not know these two young men. The police decided to go forward as they stepped from the train, interrogate them, and ask them what brought them there. Naturally these young men got frightened. They did not know what the police were coming to them for, and they did what many people might do under the circumstances, they, with another man, ran away. What happened? The police actually fired upon them. These young men had committed no crime. They were young men against whom no warrant had been issued. They were not even under the suspicion of committing a crime. Then the paragraph goes on in this paper which is very friendly to the authorities—

Mr. MOLES: May we have the name of the paper?

Mr. MacVEAGH: The "Neagh News and Tipperary Vindicator."

Mr. MOLES: Oh, I know, that is friendly to us—to the Government.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I did not say it was friendly to you. The paragraph concludes as follows—but here let me interject that the point is not whether or not I agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the friendliness of the paper—the question is, is this incident true?
The police are now satisfied that the men on whom they fired were on legitimate business, and they ran away for mere fright, and not because they had any motive for eluding the police.
I ask the House does not this disclose an absolute public scandal? It is not an isolated case, not at all. If this were the only incident it might be explained away. But my hon. and gallant Friend put a question the other day about a similar case. A motor car was proceeding along a road in one of our counties. The police
called upon the occupants of the motor to stop. I dare say the police have powers to call upon a motor driver to stop. They have taken very drastic powers with regard to anybody in charge of a motor, or motor cycle, or anything of the sort. They called upon the driver to stop. The driver did not obey the order. What would happen in England if a thing of that kind took place? The police would trace the owner of the car and prosecute him. In Ireland the police fired on the car and wounded two passengers, while the motor car itself was riddled with bullets. The only defence offered by the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary, in answer to a question, was that the police fired upon the car in order to pierce the tyres and prevent the people from getting away.

Captain DIXON: That is military law.

Mr. MacVEAGH: No doubt it is military law. But does that justify the murder of civilians.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am allowing the hon. Gentleman more latitude than usual, but he cannot go into the question of military law or of general policy.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I assure you I have not deviated one hair's-breadth from the subject during my speech, except on one occasion, when I admitted it. At present I am in order. I am dealing now with the police firing on motor cars. I was interrupted by the hon. Member opposite, who said that Ireland was under military law. I give him the very natural reply, which is that military law does not justify the shooting of innocent civilians. I fail to see, therefore, that I am out of order in dealing with that. That is one case. The other case in the same newspaper refers to the Crimes Court at Tipperary. A number of people gathered to welcome home some hunger-striking prisoners released from gaol. The Crown Solicitor prosecuted—it is rather a long report—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can deal with the Irish Constabulary, but not go into extraneous matters.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am going to do that I understand that perfectly well.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will please bear in mind that he cannot, in this Committee, discuss matters beyond the question before the
Committee. Other Members will want to reply to him if he goes into other questions. The hon. Member, therefore, must keep his observations within the limits I have stated.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I think I am entitled to protest against your ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] With ail respect, I am going to submit, on a point- of Order, that I have not deviated one hair's-breadth from the Rules of Order. I have been fifteen years in this House, and I know what I can discuss. I am dealing with a police prosecution in a case where men were coining home, and were to be received by a crowd on their release from prison. The Crown Solicitor, speaking on behalf of the police in prosecuting four men for taking part in an unlawful assembly, said:
It was only fair to state that there was no evidence of any of the defendants having made use of the expressions referred to, but as members of the crowd they had committed a breach of the law.
There were shouts from the large crowd collected of "Up knocklong!" The Crown Solicitor went on:
It was also right to mention that when the crowd was asked to disperse they did so, and there was no attempt to molest the police.
Police witnesses were called. They stated that both the defendants co-operated with them in securing the dispersal of the crowd. There was no trouble whatever with these men. What was the decision? The Chairman, in giving the decision of the Court, said they were prepared to treat all defendants on the same terms, but as two of them had said in the Court that they believed people had a perfect right to meet as they did, they would be sent to prison for a month in default of giving bail for their good behaviour. These two men had assisted the police to disperse the crowd. That is the sort of thing that is going on in Ireland. The police are being used for other things, too.
They have raided private houses in Ireland during the last two years to the number of at least 15,000. The Government will not give us the numbers. I assert here to-night, and challenge contradiction, that the number of private houses raided is between 12,000 and 15,000. Why is it we cannot be told the exact number? Because the authorities do not want English people to know the extent of the terrorism that is being practised in Ireland. It is a fine commentary on the present Administration that they have sent
then police out to raid 12,000 private houses. Edmund Burke said once that it was impossible to indict a nation. This Government has got as near as they possibly could to that operation. They have endeavoured to suppress a nation. The thing cannot be done. With much of the political ferment in Ireland I naturally have no sympathy. I owe no allegiance to the leaders of the present political movement; in Ireland, but I object to my countrymen being shot down by outsiders, and being persecuted by any police force, whether English or Irish. I desire to see my own countrymen enjoying freedom, that freedom that this country went to war to secure for small nations. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn) for bringing forward this Motion, although I have no hope that any satisfaction will follow from it as far as this House or the Government is concerned. I am satisfied, however, that a good effect will follow, because it will show that there are still friends of freedom left in this House. I do not share the regret which has been expressed at the absence of the Chief Secretary. I am quite satisfied with the Attorney-General, because at any rate we shall get a courteous reply, if we get nothing else.

Mr. MOLES: With regard to what has been said by the last speaker and the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench I must say that I value freedom for my countrymen just as dearly as any other hon. Members, and I think I understand precisely what freedom means quite as well as they do. I have noticed the frequency with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) has recently been taking the protection of Irish affairs under his wing. He has apparently reached the conclusion that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. MacVeagh) and those associated with him are no longer competent for the task of defending Nationalism in Ireland. There is always a type ready to rush in where angels fear to tread. I only wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's knowledge of Ireland was in any way commensurate with his self-assurance. He strikes me as being profoundly ignorant of the whole condition of affairs in Ireland. I know that the hon. and gallant Member recently paid a somewhat surreptitious visit to Ireland for the purpose of informing himself, but he has come back hardly as wise as he went, because with respect to Ireland a little knowledge is a profoundly dangerous thing. The hon. and gallant
Member has plunged into this discussion with characteristic recklessness. It appears to me that the hon. and gallant Member thinks that if the uses sufficient bad language the House may imagine he is advocating good principles. The two hon. Members who have spoken on the subject have been permitted to roam at large not over these Estimates, but the whole of the Irish question, and in these circumstances it is difficult for me to confine myself within the limits of order which you. Sir Edwin, have laid down and which I desire to observe. I hope I may be permitted some small measure of freedom in saying a word or two in defence of a force which has been grossly abused and abominably treated in Ireland.
What are these Estimates? They represent no more than the desire on the part of the Government to pay to these men who carry their lives in their hands a living wage, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in the name of freedom and order, solemnly moves to reduce the wages of these men, and that is supposed to be an exposition of freedom. I think they had better begin and get a lexicon and see what freedom really means. We have heard denunciations about the actions of the police and condemnation of the armed occupation of Ireland. We have heard something about the training of the police force in the use of hand grenades. What is it that has made all these things necessary in Ireland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Bad Government."] Will some hon. Member opposite answer my question?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Misgovernment.

Mr. MOLES: In other words, that means that it is justifiable to proceed to open murder, and you say inferentially that the whole of these things are justified because the Government does not repose upon the goodwill of the people. Let us look at the condition of affairs immediately preceding these outrages. Let me go back a little and remind the House of these things. I have not come here with a prepared brief, but I will tell the House one or two of the things that come to my recollection. A Godfearing man well known to a good many people, Mr. Milling, went into his dining-room to wind up his clock, and, while he was standing with the key in his hand, an assassin levelled his rifle at him through the window, and he was in the presence of his Maker in a second. What
was his crime? He had simply carried out the law as laid down by this House. The district inspector of police stood at the corner of the street and there were fifty men within ten yards of him, and fifty of them saw the assassin level his rifle and the next second he lay struggling in his death agony, and the fifty men who should have stepped forward to soothe the lingering moments of this agonising death, upon the testimony of the coroner's inquest, simply laughed and jeered at the death struggles of this man. In another case three policemen were offering protection to a defenceless widow and three children and they were returning at midnight from their lonely patrol, and just as they reached the gate four cowardly assassins pulled their triggers and two of these men died, and the third remains a mutilated man. That sort of thing has gone on up and down the country and because the Government feel it is imperative to vindicate law and order to release the public from this terror that pursues them up and down the whole country, they are denounced here as enemies of freedom. What freedom have these wretched people who are subject to this kind of terrorism?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that if we go on with the discussion of terrorism in Ireland and the fifty people he has alluded to not defending this man, it will be impossible to keen the Debate in order. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Irish Constabulary and the money provided for that service.

Mr. MOLES: I had hoped the argument that the police were protecting the people from this kind of thing might have been in order, but I will adhere to the spirit and letter of your ruling. The police are obliged to obey the direction of the authorities, and the Government are bound to afford through the police protection to the public from the kind of thing which I have indicated. The first business of a Government is to protect the people from lawlessness and violence. Hundreds of police barracks have had to be closed down and the police concentrated in the larger barracks in sufficient numbers to be able to resist a siege, because scores of barracks have been under siege and policemen have been shot down in the barracks themselves. That is the condition of affairs which has obliged the police to be concentrated in this kind of
way, and the Government are augmenting the police to afford the public protection from this violence. They are also doing what they ought to have done years ago, and are endeavouring to give these men a decent living wage, irrespective of whether they are being subjected to the risk of violent death or not. If there be arty good and sound reason why these men should not be paid a fair wage, let us have that reason. It would be sufficient justification for inviting us to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment, but, if there be no such reason, then there is no justification for the Amendment or for the conduct of any Member who dares to support it.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: The stories to which we have just listened might probably convince a less judicial-minded Committee of the necessity of an enlarged police force in Ireland, but I hope that this Committee will not pass this Vote without snore careful scrutiny of the circumstances. Probably the stories to which we have just listened are true, and I do not wish in any way to condone these crimes, but I do not believe that we know half the facts concerning these things in Ireland.

Mr. MOLES: I am sure you do not.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Whenever a class war starts in any country we hear propaganda on these lines. I should not be at all surprised—indeed, it is common talk throughout the whole of Ireland—that if these atrocities are committed by any party or by the officials of any party it is the Ulster Party as much as the Sinn Fein party that is responsible. It stands to reason that no party would originate these crimes on purpose without realising the harm and the injustice that would accrue from them. No party which had any sense at all would do it.

Mr. MOLES: They have no sense.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: if any party had any motive in bringing about these atrocities, it would certainly be the Ulster party rather than the Sinn Fein party. Who started the rebellion in Ireland? The Ulster party.

Mr. MOLES: The hon. Member really does not understand the question. The Shin Fein organisation was founded in 1905.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What has that to do with it?

Mr. MOLES: It has to do with the observations of the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I do not care when this Sinn Fein organisation originated. The Ulster party were the originators of the rebellion.

Mr. MOLES: No.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the Vote for the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Lieut.-Colones MALONE: I was replying to the pathetic stories which the hon. Member has related to the Committee, and I was trying to describe how those stories originated.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not in order. The only question is the increased amount asked for the Royal Irish Constabulary. If there be any objection to that increase, hon. Members are entitled to raise it, but it must be in connection with the sum of money that the Committee are asked to Vote for the additional wages required.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I will get to that point. I was pointing out that the best way of dealing with the Irish situation was not to raise terrorism in Ireland and to increase the police force. That is not the way that Members on this side of the House wish to see the Irish question dealt with. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised this matter to-night, and I associate myself with him and his friends who have supported the Amendment. We all know what goes on in Ireland. The Chief Secretary himself must know. Only a few weeks ago his own car was shot in the back when he was going into Isis own castle, and he narrowly escaped death. That is the condition of things that exists in Ireland to-day. I know of the raids that my hon. Friend (Mr. MacVeagh) mentioned. The house of a friend of mine was raided by the police, who carried away firearms three and four hundred years old. Is it for that we pay the police? I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell us. I associate myself with this Amendment because I realise that the peace of Ireland means the peace of the world. I would like the Committee to remember that the whole peace of Turkey depends upon peace in Ireland,
It is quite well known that the Peace Treaty with Turkey cannot be signed until the Irish question is settled.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the general policy of the Government in regard to Ireland, and that is not in Order on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: This matter cannot be treated too seriously. The police question is the basis of the Irish question, and it is because it jeopardises the whole peace of the world that I rise to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member, and I hope that he will take the matter to a Division.

Mr. LYNN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down evidently knows everything about Trotsky's Red Guard but nothing about the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is quite evident that he knows no more about it than he knows what weather there is in Peru to-day. We are here for the purpose of voting certain supplies. This House a few days ago passed a Bill increasing the salaries of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Committee is now asked to reverse that decision and not to provide the money that we have already agreed to provide. I am not going into the general question. It would be very easy to answer the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member. They are so futile, or rather puerile, that they do not need to be answered. We have a force in Ireland, and we have to pay it a decent salary. Therefore, the Vote put down by the Government ought to be supported by every Member of the House who wants to see law and order maintained, or, rather, restored, in Ireland. These people who are making inflammatory speeches are really partially guilty of the murders that are being committed in that country.

Mr. HENRY: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not here to reply on behalf of the Irish Government. But I wish to say a few words in reference to the Debate which has taken place, on his behalf, as well as for myself. I regret it should have been thought necessary by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Benn) to deal with this question in the way he has done, and the reason I regret it is because during a long and trying career in the service of this House and of His Majesty I doubt whether there has ever been a time when the members of the Royal Irish
Constabulary more wanted the support of all men who have any regard for peace in the Sister Island. They are serving in large parts of Ireland at the risk of their lives, and out of the 9,000 odd men who constitute that great force, I have yet to learn of any man who has failed to discharge his duty. The record of the force show that during the War they joined the British forces in large numbers and fought under the British flag. But it is one thing to meet death side by side with your comrades in the heat of battle. It is another thing to have death following you in the street and attacking you on the lonely road in the darkness, and yet the latter is the ordeal which the constabulary have to pass through at the present time. There is not the glory of the battlefield for the man who is shot in a dark lane, and I am sorry to say that after he is dead his body is received too often, not with honour or with gratitude, but with hatred and contempt.
The history of the last three months in Ireland has been a sad history. I am an Irishman born and bred, and I feel deeply for the dreadful condition of affairs that exists at the present time. There is one consolation, and that is that the murders that are committed, although they have the sympathy of a good many, are the work of a comparatively small body, and in the end, let us hope and pray, public opinion will assert itself in Ireland and put down this organisation of assassination. One who heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member would imagine that this state of affairs has only arisen in Ireland within a comparatively short space of time. But let me remind hon. Members opposite that from the year 1905 down to 1916 no one could suggest that a Government exercising coercion was in power in Ireland or in this country. They had the advantage of a Government of which I believe my hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, and no one who has spoken in favour of this Amendment will allege that that Government was a coercion Government. And vet what was the result? In 1916 we had the most terrible upheaval that we have had in Ireland for over 100 years, and that condition of affairs has gone on since 1916, and in recent times has got still worse. Why, then, attack the Royal Irish Constabulary for a state of affairs that every Government has been powerless to stop?
Let me take up the charges suggested against the Royal Irish Constabulary. It
is quite easy for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to gather from the newspapers instances of persons who are sent to gaol for this, that, or the other. Let the House understand the position of affairs in the Courts of Ireland. A person is tried for an offence which may be more or less trivial from one point of view. But a great deal depends on the locality where the offence is committed. Their first step, usually, is to decline to recognise the jurisdiction of the Court, in other words, to flout the authority of the Courts of Law in the land, with the result that they go to prison deliberately. If they recognised the jurisdiction of the Court and gave security for good behaviour, they could walk out scot free.

Captain BENN: And is it a crime to decline to recognise the authority of the Court?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing whether that is a crime or not. It is so easy to get away from the order of Debate.

Mr. HENRY: I was merely dealing with the suggestion as to the number of persons who were sent to prison. But I pass from that subject with the statement that if persons absolutely decline to recognise the King or the King's Court, I call it something very like a crime. Another point raised was with regard to the prohibition of fairs. But has any fair been prohibited unless in the immediate district, or in the very town where the fair was to be held, a horrible murder had been perpetrated beforehand? These fairs are sometimes merely excuses for disorder. Sometimes they lead to the gravest disorder and even worse. The hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate referred to the views of judges as to the condition of Ireland. I did not gather from him the dates of those extracts, but may I refer the House on this very question of the action of the police and the condition of affairs with which they are face to face, to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, whom no one will accuse of being at all unfriendly to his country? So late as the 3rd of this month, in opening the winter Assizes for the Province of Munster the learned judge said:
In Clare county the laws of God and man were defied. Why was Clare so crime-ridden? People were apt to blame different causes. Sometimes it was the Government which was blamed, by others it was the clergy, by others -the police, and by others the people. Was the
Government responsible for the state of crime in Clare? The Government of the country did not stop short at the River Shannon, and why was it that Limerick was so peaceful and Clare so crime-ridden? They could dismiss the Government as the cause of the crime. The clergy whose duty it was to preach Christianity and charity did so in Clare as they did in olden times. The clergy of Clare were to-day as zealous in their teaching as they always had been.…The people had allowed themselves to be terrorised and downtrodden by a comparatively small group of restless and excited men. The people did not assist, the police in the prevention of crime, but encouraged it when it was committed.
These are the words not of a partisan, but of a. distinguished judge, spoken in the course of his investigation of cases for the whole Province of Munster. I put it to the House, are we to take that testimony or the testimony of newspapers picked up haphazard and read out in this House?

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether this peaceful county of Limerick has not also been proclaimed?

Mr. MOLES: And reduced to order?

Mr. HENRY: I suggest the reason why Limerick at the present time is so peaceful is that it was proclaimed and kept in order.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Then why did not the proclamation kill crime in County Clare?

Mr. HENRY: Let me give the House a specimen of the position the constabulary occupy in their own country. Here is a copy of a printed proclamation posted up in the county of Wicklow in October, 1919:
The people in this area are warned that for their own safety and in the interests of their country they should avoid absolutely all communications of a friendly nature with the members of the R.I.C.
This force of men is specially organised for the maintenance in our downtrodden country of a tyrannical foreign Government by a system of spying and corruption unrivalled in the history of any land.
The police (who come from among the people themselves) are traitors to their own flesh and blood, sworn to spare neither parent, brother, sister, or wife, in the discharge of their degrading duty, the overthrow of the God-given rights of their fellow countrymen.
They should therefore be avoided as more dangerous than plague, and more ruinous than any other group of ruffians to the morals of society.
Let no Irish man or woman with any sense of principle or honour be seen speaking to, saluting, or in any way tolerating the existence of a peeler either in public or private.

BEWARE.

This is not an appeal, but an order from the Irish Republican Government. To those who ignore it will be meted the punishment of traitors.

By ORDER,

G.O.C. Eastern Command, I.R.A., East Wicklow Area

(On behalf of the Irish Republican Government)."

That is not a solitary illustration, but I do not wish to weary the Committee by giving other instances. Remember that in these districts the so-called Irish Republican Government has the power of carrying out the threats it uses to these men, whose only crime is to discharge their duty. I must say that I regret that hon. Members should have thought it necessary to raise this question at the present time. These inert are doing all they can, and I believe they will ultimately succeed in suppressing the horrible and dangerous conspiracy which has made Ireland a by-word among the civilised countries of the world.

Major BARNES: The description given by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Moles) of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Bents) as being something between a fanatic and a savage will not encourage the Committee to rely very much on the hon. Member's description of his own country.

Mr. MOLES: It was not my description.

Major BARNES: Then I must have misinterpreted it. I thought the hon. Member suggested that my hon. and gallant Friend had both the qualities of a fanatic and a savage. If the phrase was used in an Ulsterian sense I pass it by. Even Englishmen may be permitted to speak on the present condition of Ireland.

Mr. MOLES: Certainly, when they know it.

Major BARNES: Some of us may feel some responsibility for it, and from that point of view may be permitted to indulge in discussion without unfavourable comment. I am quite sure that tie Chief Secretary is not absent from the Debate from any want of courage. It is perfectly clear that no man could hold the office he holds and subject himself to the perils which undoubtedly attach themselves to anyone holding that office, without possessing great qualities of courage. I am quite sure it is not the absence of those qualities which accounts for the right hon.
Gentleman's absence from the Committee. It is just possible that his absence may be due to other feelings. It may be that some little feeling of shame keeps hint from the Committee. It cannot be a very happy position for a Liberal statesman to find himself in at the present time, to have to be the apologist for the condition of things which exists in Ireland. I think it is quite within the scope of this Debate to discuss the state of affairs there. What are we discussing? The question of very considerable increases in the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I suggest that there is some connection between the increase in their pay and the present condition of affairs in Ireland. I am led to that view by a consideration of the fact that these increases in pay were made closely upon the increases of pay given to the police force in this country. One can see a very close analogy between the causes that led to both. One cannot help feeling that the increases in pay were given, not because of any great consideration of the conditions in which the police of either country then found themselves, but because only through such increases in their pay could they be induced to retain their positions. [HON. MEMBEES: "No. no!"] I think that has been clearly established. In this country at least the police were very closely in sympathy with the people. They w ere forming a union which brought them closely in touch with the rest of the workers, and it was perfectly clear—

The CHAIRMAN: That question has been settled by an Act of Parliament, and that question is a matter for legislation. We are not entitled to debate those points in Committee of Supply.

Major BARNES: I shall not pursue the analogy, and will come to the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is not the slightest desire on this side of the Committee to cast the least reflection on that body as individuals. It is perfectly clear that they are exposed to great perils and subjected in many cases to outrage. It is perfectly clear that the position of the member of the Royal Irish Constabulary—I suppose, most of them are Irishmen—must be at the present time almost intolerable. Front which ever side of the Committee the stories come, they all point to this one thing, that at the present time an Irish policeman is almost entirely out of sympathy with the great body of his countrymen. All the instances given point to it.
It does not matter whether they are told by my hon. and gallant Friend or by hon. Members opposite. From the one side we hear that the police are in such a state of nerves that they fire at a couple of men in a railway station who run away from them, and that they fire upon a motor car. From the other side we hear stories of a constable standing in the midst of fifty of his countrymen, not a single one of whom would raise a finger to prevent his being clone to death. Such a state of things is wholly incredible. If one contrasts the native policemen in Ireland with the native policemen in England, he sees that there must be something radically wrong to account for the difference. From that point of view it is perfectly legitimate for us on this side on this question, without any intention of doing any injury at all to the Royal Irish Constabulary, to point out what we believe to be the real state of the case, namely, that the position of the police is due to the general condition and the general government there prevailing. Everything that has been said by the Attorney-General points to the same thing. He has said that the police go about at the risk of their lives. We may believe that. He has also told us that in the case of death it is not a case of meeting with honour, but of meeting with hatred and contempt. Every sentence he spoke pointed to an entirely abnormal state of things. His hope is that in order to put an end to this there may arise a healthy public opinion. How can that be obtained? Why are there no signs of it arising? How can you expect it to be aroused when your houses are being raided, and when your gaols are being filled with women, boys and girls? One of the worst instances we had before the War, as revealing the state of Germany, was the Zabern incident of a hunchback who smiled derisively at a soldier. We learn that in Ireland a boy is put in gaol for whistling derisively at a policeman.

The CHAIRMAN: This is really not an occasion for a general debate on the state of Ireland. The increased pay is fixed for Ireland as well as England by Act of Parliament. The general state of Ireland does not arise here. This is a Supplementary Vote for increased pay following the Act of Parliament.

Major BARNES: It is very difficult when you are discussing the cost of a weapon not to have some reference to the purposes for which it is being used. I will
not go further in that direction. I think I cannot be out of order in replying to what the Attorney-General actually said.

The CHAIRMAN: I rather thought the Attorney-General was out of order.

Major BARNES: I am content to be out of order in such excellent company. It was one great Irishman, Edmund Burke, who said it was impossible to indict a whole people. Evidently another great Irishman, the Lord Chief Justice, finds it quite possible to eliminate the Government, the clergy and the police and to rest the blame for the present condition of things upon the people of Ireland. We on this side of the House can only say that we feel we are not going a yard beyond the position we are entitled to take on this Vote in drawing attention to the intolerable and unsatisfactory state of affairs in Ireland.
Question put, and agreed to.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants in Aid.

10.0 P.M.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis): The total cost to the Board of Education of the scheme for the education of demobilised officers and men was originally estimated not to exceed £6,000,000. This estimate was based on the assumption that awards would be made to 15,000 students, that being the estimated maximum capacity of the educational institutions in which they were to receive their training, at an average total cost per student for the whole course of £400. The average total cost per student has actually worked out at a considerably smaller sum, but the number of students who have applied for Grants has very largely exceeded all expectations, and the capacity of the universities and the other institutions they have attended to accommodate the students has proved very much greater than was thought possible. Up to 6th December the Board of Education has received nearly 22,000 applications, and has made over 17,600 awards, involving a total commitment of
£5,430,000, and at present applications from ex-Service men for courses of training in universities and places of higher learning are being received at the rate of well over 600 a week. I have no doubt these applications will continue to be made in large numbers owing to the fact that demobilisation is still proceeding upon a large scale and is not expected to be completed until the spring of 1920. A sum of £500,000 has already been taken for the financial year 1919–20. At the time when this Estimate was made only a comparatively small number of applications had been received, and we had no reliable data upon which we could form an estimate of the number of applications which might be expected. On 5th June last the Board had received only 743 applications for final awards, and they have made 1,700 interim Grants, those two figures to a certain extent overlapping each other. Owing to the fact that in the case of the great majority of the 17,600 awards which have already been made, the approved course began either in the financial year 1919–20, or continued in that financial year, it became necessary to ask for as much as £1,500,000 for the financial year in addition to the £500,000 which had already been taken.
I have indicated already to some extent the reason for such an exceptionally large number of applications which have been received and which are likely to be received, but an additional reason is the delay in the resettlement of industry and the consequent inability of many ex-officers and men of the like class, to obtain employment. Again, tine number of applicants to the Board of Education has been much greater than has been anticipated in proportion to the number of applications which were made for training of a character which is provided by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour. Another reason for the large number of students was the propaganda of the military authorities and the Appointments Department, which made the scheme widely known throughout the Forces. Another factor has been the Army education scheme, which has brought home to men in the Army the value of education and has induced a good many of them who would otherwise have remained indifferent to think seriously of completing their education. Then there was the unexpected readiness of the universities and technical institu-
tions to stretch their accommodation and their teaching power. The objects of the scheme have been to repair as far as possible, in the national interest, the losses in the supply of trained and educated men owing to casualties, suspension of education or impairment of professional efficiency and the necessity in the case of the disabled of diminishing their degree of dependence, and the desirability of withdrawing from the labour market as large a number as possible of the younger men whose service experience would not have supplied adequate preparation for the work of civil life. The reports which have been received from all parts of the country with reference to this matter go to show that they are not only appreciating to the full the advantages which have been placed within their reach, but that they are making the utmost use of their opportunities.
It is a large amount of money, but I believe it to be money admirably spent, and money which will yield a large return to the country. It is one of the best investments that the country has made. We have lost an immense wealth of talent upon the battle fields in the various theatres of war. For four successive years the annual crops of students have been unable to go to the universities, and it has been absolutely necessary in the interests of the nation that the gaps which have been made should be filled, and that men who are fit to be leaders in commerce and industry, of the arts and of science, should receive the benefit of a good educational training, which will enable them to lead their fellow men in the work of reconstruction. May I add a few words with reference to the work which my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) has done in this connection? He has been at the Board of Education for a whole year. He has been at the head of the officers' branch, and has devoted himself heart and soul to the work. He has toiled at it early and late, and has had to face innumerable problems arising out of the various classes of students from whom we hope to provide the future educational wealth of the nation. On behalf of the ex-Service men who will receive the benefits of this instruction, and on behalf of the Board of Education it is right that a tribute of appreciation should be paid to the admirable work that he has done for the ex-Service men. I trust that the explanation I have given will satisfy the Committee, that the additional amount we
ask for is necessary, and that the money which is proposed to be expended will be spent on a good object, and will yield an ample and substantial return to the nation.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not quite sure that I got the figures right. Did the hon. Gentleman say that there have been 17,000 awards, involving a charge of £5,429,000?

Mr. LEWIS: I said that 17,600 awards have been made, involving total commitments of £5,430,000.

Mr. HOGGE: We are glad the Minister of Education is in his place while this Estimate is being discussed. He is the second Minister who has been good enough to be present while we are discussing the Estimates. There are one or two points which I want to raise, not points of criticism exactly, because I am certain that everyone, as was the case on the Ministry of Pensions Vote, is quite prepared to see money spent on this particular object. There are certain cries for economy in the country at the present moment. One of the stupidest of those cries is the cry against the expenditure of money which is reproductive and remunerative from the point of view of the State. I have no sympathy with that particular cry. I should like to raise one question in regard to the use of the words "ex-officers and men of like standing." The phrase "men of like standing" seems to be a tremendously difficult phrase to interpret. It occurs in the Pension Warrant, with regard to pensions which are given to officers. The provision was then made that men who were in the same social class as officers who received commissions, but who served in the ranks should receive the same rates of pension. I am not quite clear whether my right hon. Friend in determining these grants of assistance to ex-Service men who desire them does so on the basis of a social distinction. It is rather important to know that.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): It is an educational qualification. The test is whether the officer or man is sufficiently well educated to profit by the university course which is offered to them.

Mr. HOGGE: I am glad to know that, but it does not quite say that here. It uses the words of the Pension Warrant, and the Pension Warrant provides for a social distinction.

Mr. FISHER: It is an unfortunate phrase.

Mr. HOGGE: I agree it is an unfortunate phrase. The proper test is whether a man is able to benefit by the education offered. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of one class in regard to which there seems to be considerable difficulty. It arises in connection with the question of continuous education up to the age of eighteen. Possibly he has had a number of these cases. There are a number of boys who joined the Colours out of pure patriotism. They rushed to the Colours before they ought to have gone, and deceived the recruiting officer in regard to their age. They gave up their education. In many cases they had been at secondary schools. These boys, having served for three, four, and some of them for five years, come back and make application for grants for assistance towards their higher education, and they are informed that because they have not been continuously educated until the age of eighteen they are not eligible. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows of those cases.

Mr. FISHER: There may be cases of that sort in Scotland. This only concerns England and Wales. I do not think we have had any cases of that sort here.

Mr. HOGGE: I should be glad to know that it is not the case in England and Wales. I know of many cases where boys have been refused the right to sit for examination for the Civil Service, which ought to be open to all ex-Service men, because they had not been continuously educated up to the age of eighteen. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will look into that. It is not a big point, but it is a useful point. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend is taking enough money. If it be true that there are 17,000 awards already made, involving nearly £5,500,000, and applications are coming in at the rate of 600 a weak, which means 31,000 a, year, I am not sure that he has not underestimated the amount of money he will require. While it is a good thing to give that large number of men professional training, I would like to know if anything is being done to find occupation for these young men after they have gone through their university career? Many of us who are interested in discharged men who train for industrial occupations find over and over again that a man is not allowed to enter training for a certain occupation—
say, motor engineering. They are told that it is absolutely full, and that it, is hopeless to put them into training for it because there would be no occupation for them after their training had finished. You have already 22,000 applications. You have them coming in at the rate of 600 a week. Owing to the Armistice coming more quickly than some of us expected, the Government were not ready to find occupation for many of the men who had served in the Army. Therefore, we have arranged this university system, by which thousands of men are being trained professionally, but I would be interested to know what faculties these men are going in for—whether they are going in for law, medicine, the Church, or for industrial courses. If there is that large number, it would be worth the while of my right hon. Friend to look ahead and see if he can place the products of his scheme. The scheme is admirable, but there is no more pathetic spectacle than that of a man professionally trained in a university thrown on the market without any prospect of finding an occupation. While in our enthusiasm we may be making places for a number of these men in our universities, we want to look further ahead and see whether we cannot fit them into our professional, industrial, and economic life after they have gone through their courses.

Captain ELLIOT: It was unusually humble of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogge) to say that we were on small points this evening. Surely when we are discussing a university population of 17,000 young men, doubling the university population of England and Wales, it is a point of sufficient importance to warrant a little further discussion. The £5,000,000 which is being spent on these 17,000 young men is £5,000,000 which is being spent on the payment of sweated labour. We are only getting this by underpaying the staffs of our great universities. There is no more sinister fact in the world just now than the fact that the payment for muscle has gone so high above the payment for brains. It is an astonishing fact that these university lecturers who are doing a great deal of the hack work are being paid sums of £100 or £200 a year, sums which the ordinary able-bodied man would laugh at.

Mr. WIGNALL: And rightly so!

Captain ELLIOT: But you do not score in the long run—and Labour knows this as well as anybody else—by sweating
your intellectual workers to overpay your manual workers. A very interesting report was given to me from the Labour Research Department of the Fabian Society, in which they go so far as to threaten a strike against the trade unions for underpaying them. They say, frankly, that it is not a case of Labour not knowing; Labour knows quite well it ought to pay them properly. Professional men are paid by capitalists £1,500 to £2,000 a year, and if they do not get that from the trade unions they are thinking of going on strike. I commend that to hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches. The tragedy of the middle classes is bad enough; the tragedy of the intellectual worker is very grave and very immediate. If I were starting life, personally I would no more think of trying to earn my living by my brains than of trying to fly in the air. I am 6ft. 1in. and weigh 13 stones, and I would have a. very moth better time as a manual worker and would earn larger money than I could hope to earn by the decent, every-day hack work on which, after all, our civilisation largely depends. Even as an unskilled labourer I could earn better money than as a skilled worker. I could, at all events, probably make more than the £100 a year of junior lecturers, who are shockingly underpaid.
Even professors are paid only £500 or £600 a year in one of the important chairs of the University of London. While the Secretary of State for War will pay a medical man £900 a year to exile himself to Mesopotamia and to treat the ophthalmic eyes of a few savage Arabs, the educational authorities in this country will give a professor only £600 a year to occupy one of the leading chairs in medicine. The disproportion is too great, and needs to be remedied. I apologise for trespassing on the time of the House, but I call the attention of the Committee in general and of the Minister of Education in particular to the scandalous underpayment of the staffs, and particularly the junior staffs, of the educational institutions on which he is relying to carry out this great educational work, and I do ask that he should give earnest and immediatae attention to this very pressing question.

Major BREESE: I am sure we have all heard with delight the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to the number of ex-Service men who have made application for awards in respect of a course of training at our
universities, and feel that money so spent bound to reap a very rich harvest in future. I would urge on the President of the Board of Education greater expedition with the matter of the awards than has been shown in the immediate past. I know some of the difficulties that beset the Department. Owing to the demands for economy they are probably suffering from a depleted staff. On the other hand, it may be that in a number of cases the university colleges are to blame for not supplying the Department with the necessary information. It is very important that these young men, who have no means, the parents of whom have striven hard—I am speaking of parents whom I know in my Constituency—have, by the sweat of their brows put together their pence in order that their sons can reap the benefit of this training—it is important that these awards should be made with all possible promptness to these young men. Perhaps by a little more pressure something might be done to accelerate the making of these awards. I am sorry that courses in agriculture, metallurgy, and other technical matters have not been arranged, as I know that many students were anxious to take up those studies. It is a pity that in these very important spheres of higher study many students should have been debarred from the benefit to be derived from them. I would ask that consideration might be given to these matters in arranging future courses.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Elliot) that wherever labour is in the ascendant in this country in administration teachers' salaries are improved? We have spent in my county months of hard work in finding out everything with regard to the teachers and we have practically doubled the teachers' salaries. We are quite prepared to pay, because our people have been kept in the background because the salaries did not bring the best people into the profession, and we are determined to have the best brains we can get for this important work. Therefore the hon. and gallant Member need have no fear with regard to Labour paying proper salaries to professors.

Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has stated the cause of the Supplementary Vote so fully that very little remains for me to say, and I will merely confine myself to
one or two points mentioned by hon. Members, I am surprised to hear that no encouragement has been given to metallurgical students, in view of the fact that every student's case comes before me. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) asked me whether I could give him any information as to the courses which were taken up by ex-Service men, and I think that is a subject in respect to which the Committee might like to hear a little more. Up to the 6th December, 1919, the following courses of study have been approved: In classics, philosophy, and Literae Humaniores, 1,473 courses of university standard; in art, music, and architecture, 1,224 courses of university standard; pure science and mathematics, 1,819 courses of university standard; in engineering and technology, including metallurgy, 3,348 courses of university standard; in medicine and dentistry, 1,917 courses of university standard; in commerce, 529; training for teachers, 3,077; theology, 930; miscellaneous courses, 318. My hon. Friend asks me whether the Board of Education have been taking any steps towards seeing that these students were receiving appointments at the conclusion of their courses. The courses are only just beginning, but no doubt the University Institution and the Technological Institution, which are immediately responsible, will be the institutions best qualified to give them directions as to the professions and callings into which they should enter. I admit that unfortunate delays have occurred in making grants, and I am fully conscious that there are certain cases of hardship which have arisen. I have done my best to expedite them, but the hon. Member himself admitted that the Board of Education is not altogether unfettered in this matter. We are very much fettered by lack of stall. We cannot get the clerical assistanee we require, and the delays are not only delays on our side, but there are delays also on the side of the local committees. Whenever I have had occasion to examine into a case of delay at the instance of an hon. Member of this House I have invariably found that the delay was traceable to the procrastination of one of the local committees. I may say, in conclusion, that the Board of Education has taken the utmost care to scrutinise these applications, and I think I can assure the Committee that in no single instance has a grant been sanctioned unless a com-
petent committee are satisfied—first, that the student needs assistance, and, secondly, that the student is qualified to profit by the course of study.
Question put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE JOINT COMMITTEE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £506,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including sundry Grants-in-Aid).

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): This Vote is in respect of Grants-in-Aid on account of the increased cost of living to medical practitioners under the National Insurance Act. The amounts in the aggregate represent a war bonus of 18 per cent. It was arranged that, so far as possible, small incomes should receive an increase of 30 per cent. where the in-come was less than £500, 20 per cent. where it was between that sum and £1,200, and 15 per cent. Where it was over £1,200. In all cases it represents an addition to remuneration far less than the equivalent of the increased cost of living, and considerably less than the grants made to the Civil Service.

Captain ELLIOT: There is a saving of £30,000 in the sanatorium benefit (special grants), and I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would say something about that.

Dr. ADDISON: This is only in connection with increased grants for sanatoria, which will appear on other Votes.
Question put, and agreed to.

PURCHASE OF HOUSING MATERIALS (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Motion made, and Question proposed
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of Building Materials and of the purchase and adaptation of Houses for the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales.

Dr. ADDISON: This Vote has frequently been the subject of discussion in this House. An arrangement was made
earlier in the year with the Ministry of Munitions, which placed an extensive order for bricks and other materials with the trade, and they supplied a very large number of bricks and quantities of other materials to be made available for housing purposes. The whole of this expenditure will be recovered in due time train the local authorities and others to whom the materials are made over, and now that the trade has got well established we are proposing, as announced yesterday, to bring control to an end, and to liberate the material, so that it may be obtained in the ordinary way. The other item is in respect of a matter which was under discussion yesterday, and covers the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the local authorities in assisting the conversion of empty houses into flats, mainly in the Metropolitan area. I gave the House the figures yesterday, but let me say that it represents a substantial addition to our housing accommodation. The amount has been earmarked on behalf of the local authorities, and represents nearly the total amount of the Vote, but it will be recovered later under the general housing scheme, and will not form a permanent charge.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the better housing of the people, to authorise the acquisition of land for the development of garden cities or for the purpose of town-planning schemes, and to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of public authorities and bodies and with respect to the securities issued by them, it is expedient to authorse the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

(a) in making grants, not exceeding in the aggregate fifteen million pounds, to persons constructing houses in accordance with approved schemes;
(b) when exercising the powers of a local authority in connection with the conversion of buildings into separate tenements; and
(c) in contributing, by way of increase during the period ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-
1269
seven, from thirty per cent. to fifty per cent. of the grant towards annual loan charges, to costs incurred by public utility societies, housing trusts, and county councils."—[Mr, Baldwin.]

Resolution to be, reported to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [WAR ADDITION] AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Additional Weekly Sum Payable under 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 42.)

As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, in the case of a, workman who at the time when any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of July nineteen hundred and nineteen."
The Bill which we are considering in Committee is one that in the opinion of the working classes is long overdue. The increase in the cost of living for a considerable time past has been ranging around 100 per cent. over the pre-war period. At the present moment my information shows that it is 122 per cent. over the pre-war period. The people who will be affected by the Bill which we are considering have had up to the present an increase of 25 per cent. only upon their pre-war compensation, and consequently they have been in a very serious and unfortunate position as compared with other sections of our people. The British Miners' Federation and the Mining Association of Great Britain had this matter under consideration in May last, and I understand that they came to an agreement., and we expected that we should have had this Bill introduced long before now. We cannot understand the reason why there has been so much delay in introducing this measure, and accordingly we think, with a view of affording some little relief to the unfortunate section of our people who are in receipt of full compensation in consequence of being totally incapacitated through an accident sustained in the course of their employment,
that some little relief should be granted to them in the form of changing the date to the 1st of July, 1919, instead of at the passing of the Act. I hope that the Under-Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment, which will afford some relief to an unfortunate section of our people who, in our opinion, have been very harshly treated in. consequence of this Bill being delayed so long.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) is correct in pointing out-that this Bill is produced with a view to meet the increased cost of living. At the same time the date which the right hon. Gentleman suggests seems hardly appropriate in view of the fact that it was only in August that the Miners' Federation and the Mining Associations came to the Home Office with an agreed scheme, so that the. 1st of July seems rather premature from that point of view. The Committee will realise how very great the difficulties of administration would be if that date were accepted. On the other hand, I think what has been agreed to will go a considerable way to meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The associations concerned have agreed to pay the increased compensation provided for in this measure to all persons who are at present drawing insurance immediately on the passing of this Act, so that although, it is not possible to go back to the 1st of July, we shall cover a number of cases mentioned, and we shall go a long way to meet the point the right hon. Gentleman raised by the fact that all those who are at present drawing benefit will immediately receive the increase directly this Bill is passed. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not quite-understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by saying that it was only in August that the Miners' Federation and the mine owners went to the Home Office with an agreed scheme. The miners and the mine-owners agreed as to an increase in the compensation on 28th May last, and the negotiations which took place between them were the result of a suggestion of a previous Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, now Lord Cave, in the, latter part of last year. Sir Thomas Radcliffe-Ellis undertook to consult other employers of labour throughout the coun-
try. I have in my hand a letter which he wrote to Mr. Hodge on 11th July. He said,
I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding, but they happen in the best regulated families. We saw Sir Malcolm Delevingne at the Home Office yesterday, 10th July, and told him of the arrangements with reference to the compensation. I also left with him a statement showing what replies we had received from other industries, and he will report to the Home Secretary as to whether they consider that they have sufficient approval or whether they should consult others.
Our trouble has been that, although the coal-owners and the miners' executive agreed as far back as 28th May last to an improvement in the compensation, we have been held up by the Home Office, because, I assume, they have been trying to get the other people to agree. I am not complaining; I dare say that they have had some difficulties with other employers. All the miners, however, have known since 28th May that this agreement has been made between their representatives and the coal-owners, and they have been continually pressing us for some explanation why they are not receiving those payments. When we found that delay was inevitable, we suggested that when the Bill was introduced it should be made retrospective. It will be easily appreciated that, if the House is to have the respect of the workers, they must not be led to believe that it stands between them and improvements which have been already agreed as the result of negotiations between employers and workmen's representatives. So far as the employers and workmen are concerned, this thing has been settled for many months, and in proposing that this Bill shall come into operation as from 1st July last we are still proposing a date five or six weeks beyond the time when the agreement was reached. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to agree to the Amendment, and to make these benefits operative as from 1st July last rather than from 1st January next.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words
in the case of a workman who at the time any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one years or upwards.
The object of this Amendment is to remedy a very serious matter in the Bill which affects many thousands of the workmen of this country. There are many of our people in all sections of our industrial
system in this country who are earning full wages long before they reach twenty-one years of age, but if the Bill stands as drafted they will be cut out of the benefits which it seeks to confer on those who are over that age. We have no such restriction in the Act of 1917, and I cannot understand why these words should have found their way into the present measure; it is a mystery to us. But it raises a very serious question, and unless we can get the Under-Secretary to accept our Amendment we will be bound to offer to this Bill, anxious as we are to see it on the Statute Book, our most unqualified opposition. I am certain that if the Bill passes through this House in its present form it will be a fruitful source of trouble in every part of the industrial system of the country. Consequently I am strongly appealing to the Under-Secretary to accept the Amendment. We cannot understand why these words found their way into the Bill. I do not know what the explanation may be and whether it is that some of the employers have insisted on it, but if that is the position then we say that neither the Government nor this Committee ought to be consenting parties—any more than the representatives of Labour on these benches—to such words being put into a Pill of this kind. I hope, therefore, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office will accept the Amendment without further discussion.

11.0 P.M.

Major BAIRD: Anything which the right hon. Gentleman says on a matter of this kind is entitled to be received from this Bench with consideration. At the same time, I can explain easily why the limit is twenty-one years of age, and I must say I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman himself should not be aware of it. It arises from the fact that in the proposals which were put before the, Home Office by the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association, those proposals were confined to persons of twenty-one years of age and upwards. [HON. MEMBER: "No!"] That is my information. Here are the proposals:
The Mining Association of Great Britain Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 and 1907.

1. In the case of workmen over twenty-one years of age there shall be a minimum compensation of £1 a week.
2. For workmen over twenty-one years of age without dependants there shall be an increase of 50 per cent. of the compensation payable under the 1906 Act, with a maximum of 30s.
1273
3. For workmen over twenty-one years of age an increase of 50 per cent. of the compensation payable under the 1906 Act. plus 5s. per week for each person wholly dependent upon such workmen, with a maximum of 40s."

Those are our reasons for confining this Bill to workmen over twenty-one years of age.

Mr. HARTSHORN: From where did the hon. Gentleman get those proposals?

Major BAIRD: They are the proposals we received at the Home Office from the Mining Association of Great Britain. We understood they embodied the agreement reached with the Miners' Federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!".] Of course, if that be not the case, it complicates the situation, but I am bound to say that, on the merits of the case alone, the basis of the whole Bill has been what we understood to be the agreement between a great body of workmen and a great body of employers, not covering the whole field of workmen or the whole field of employers. When we went into the question we found that the proposal embodied in the agreement did not commend itself to us, and that it was necessary to find some other proposals which, while not embodying the proposals of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, would, on the whole, give satisfaction. I say that in reply to the remarks made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hartshorn) on the previous Amendment. As to the present Amendment, we understood that the arrangement between the mine-owners and the miners was confined to persons over twenty-one years of age. It was on that basis that we framed the Bill and discussed the matter with other employers of labour and other forms of labour. As a rule it must be admitted that the case of people above the age of twenty-one, who may be expected to have others dependent upon them, is necessarily harder and requires greater compensation than the case of those below the age of twenty-one.

Mr. WIGNALL: Not always.

Major BAIRD: I say that as a rule it must be admitted that the case of a man over twenty-one, who has others dependent upon him, is, primâ facie, a harder case than that of a man below that age, and I think the Committee will agree that that is so. Taking that point of view on the merits and feeling that we were supported by the agreement that we understood was reached by both sides in the mining world, we have
framed the Bill in the way it appears, and it is to the Bill in that form that we have received general assent.

Mr. BRACE: I am surprised and much taken aback by the view taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When he rests himself, as he apparently does, upon the communications sent to him from the Mining Association, he must have forgotten that that association was not representative of the workmen, but of the employers. It would not surprise me at all to know that the employers took this view. When it is pointed out to him by the Leader of the Labour party that considerable hardships will result from the acceptance of the principle limiting the application of full compensation to twenty-one years of age, we are entitled to ask him to have a consultation with the Leader of the House with a view to trying to meet me on this point. Not only are men married with families under twenty-one, but they are classified in many industries as being full workmen long before they are twenty-one. In the mining industry there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men below twenty-one who are treated in every sense as if they were men of a much more mature age. How can you expect industrial peace in any industry if you have men doing this work, ordinarily earning full wages, when they receive an injury finding themselves put in a class winch does not permit them to receive compensation upon the basis of their earning capacity? It was my privilege when I held the position the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds now to introduce the Bill which gave an increase of 25 per cent. in the compensation, but we heard no talk then about any limitation of the age period. The real reason why the increase was agreed upon was because it was found necessary in consequence of the increased cost of living to endeavour to meet these people who are so hardly hit in connection with what, after all, is a very human problem. I am bound to ask the Leader of the House to give serious attention to this point of view. It would throw us into conflict with our trade union. If my hon. Friend had accepted the principle I should be disposed to ask that further time should be given for further consideration of the Bill, but I am very reluctant to ask the House to refer the Bill back because men and women are actually starving for want of this increased compensation. We are faced with one of these human problems that make it quite impossible for us to accept
a provision which will place outside the increase of compensation men who by their earning capacity are entitled to be brought within that category. The principle of the original Act is that the compensation is paid not upon age but upon earning capacity. If you are going to give an increase why introduce a new principle? The Home Office have allowed themselves to be misled by the communications from the Mining Associations, quite honestly I am sure. They would not move unless they were convinced that they were acting in accord with what they thought was reasonable on the part of the miners. I hope my hon. Friend will not conclude that we are willing to accept this limitation. We cannot accept it. It would cause us many difficulties. We should have strikes as a result. Our people would not accept it. Although the man under twenty-one may not be receiving compensation to-day, he knows, following a dangerous occupation, that to-morrow he may well be within the category. Therefore, we should arouse for ourselves such a position that I do not think the Labour party could withstand it. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House to reconsider the position.

Major BAIRD: This is not a matter upon which there can possibly be any room for allowing a misunderstanding to exist. It is the last thing we would desire to endeavour to force something about which there is misunderstanding. We honestly believed that an understanding had been reached between the miners and the mine-owners. On that basis we proceeded to endeavour to get agreement between the rest of the labour world and the employers. If we have been misinformed, and if we have proceeded upon incorrect premises, obviously the matter must be reconsidered, but I would invite hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember the seriousness of this question. It is quite true that this measure is already overdue, and I am sure they will join with us in an endeavour to avoid the difficulties which may arise from an indefinite postponement. There is not a very long time left to carry this Bill through this House and another place. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must appreciate that if we adjourn the discussion of this measure to-night with a view to seeing if we can agree to-morrow everybody will do their
best to see that we do get agreement in order that this very important matter may be settled. I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Home Office, to reconsider this point in view of what has been said by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I ask them to believe that, if there has been a misunderstanding, it has been an honest one and nobody regrets it more than we do. I hope we all agree that there must he no delay in getting this very important measure on the Statute Book. I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. HARTSHORN: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: On a motion to report Progress, the hon. Member cannot enter into the merits of the case. The question is whether we carry the mutter over until to-morrow or not.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I understand the hon. Member has suggested that the matter be carried over to-morrow in order that we may get agreement. This is not the only point an which we do not agree that the Bill conforms with what has been arranged. Could we have a meeting before to-morrow night on the points of disagreement?

Major BAIRD: I quite agree that the Bill does not represent the exact agreement which was reached between the miners and the mine-owners. As I endeavoured to explain, we hoped that we had drawn the Bill in such a way as to ensure that if we did not give precisely the same form of compensation, yet, taking it all over, the amount of compensation is quite as favourable. I am prepared to meet hon. Members on that point. There are certain points of difference in regard to the form and the amount of compensation, and am prepared to discuss that with hon. Members, but I do not want them to suppose that we can find it possible to adopt in substitution for the plan proposed in the Bill the plan which was originally suggested, and agreed to, so far as we knew, between the miners and the mine-owners.

Mr. HAYDAY: I hope that this will not be looked on merely as the interpretation of an agreement affecting one section of the community, as it is a matter which affects the whole industrial population.

Major BAIRD: May I suggest that we arrange it in the usual manner at a conference on the subject to-morrow?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think that the point is so serious that we ought to agree to report Progress with a view to having an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Home Office. There need be no dividing line on the assumption that we are discussing this simply as representing the miners. We are discussing it as representing the working people of every industry in the country, but it so happens that the Mining Association have taken a leading part in this matter, and I would suggest that there should be a meeting tomorrow between the executive of the Miners' Federation and—

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is quite evident that we want to meet hon. Members opposite, and I would suggest that they should leave it to be arranged behind the Speaker's chair as to what form the meeting should take.

Mr. ADAMSON: We will agree to accept that, and report Progress.

Mr. INSKIP: I thought that it was a very reasonable appeal which was made from the other side that the exclusion of words, and had hoped that my hon. Friend would have accepted it. Instead of that, he is suggesting that we should have an arrangement behind the Chair between a number of hon. Members who are supposed to be interested in the matter with the exclusion of everybody else, and that the matter should be withdrawn from the consideration of the House as if nobody but hon. Members opposite were interested in it. It is not to be supposed that I am against the proposals made. I am in favour of it, but I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has made this suggestion instead of saying, "Yes, of course we will accept the proposal."

Mr. BONAR LAW: It was a matter of agreement with the mine-owners.

Mr. INSKIP: Of course I realise the difficulty of departing from an agreement, but I do respectfully protest against this practice of concluding agreements outside the House when we are all here and competent to settle this small question, which I hope we could discuss and settle. We are not tied by those who sent us here or by the communities or unions. We are here to express our opinion on matters which come up for our consideration, but now this matter is to be reconsidered outside the House, and those of us who are not present will be expected to vote ac-
cording to decisions made for us, whether we agree with them or not. I respectfully protest against the whole proceeding, as I think that the matter should be settled in the ordinary constitutional way.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think in this particular case that the charge can be made of taking the matter from the decision of the House. In these questions between Capital and Labour it surely is a great advantage for the Government to get the general feeling between the two parties. As Leader of the House, I was informed that there was no controversy about this. If that is not so, it is only right to meet both sides again, to see if we can get agreement. If agreement is not reached the House can take any course it likes.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.; read the third time, and passed.

DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

Read a second time, and committed to a, Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—(Mr. Denis Henry.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Munro.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Captain W. BENN: I do not intend to speak on the merits of the Bill, but to refer to the way in which Scottish affairs are dealt with by the Government. Here is a Bill which was down for Second Reading last week, and because it was not printed was not proceeded with. That is not a general disqualification because other Bills which were not printed have been read a second time. It was circulated this morning to Members, and without any statement has been taken in all its stages. I do not complain of celerity in legislation for Scotland, but I should like to say this is a somewhat scandalous proceeding.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am rather surprised at the observations of the hon. and gallant Member. The usual complaint is as to delay, but my hon. and gallant Friend complains of celerity. If he objects to the Third Reading I will not press it now, and if he does not I think it would be convenient to take it now if it is to become law this Session.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION].

Committee to consider of authorising the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and of authorising the Treasury to borrow money by the creation of securities for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof; the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and of authorising the payment into the Exchequer and the application of dividends or interest on the capital acquired under any Act of the present Session to amend the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act, 1914.—(King's Recommendation signified),—To-morrow.—[Mr. Beldwin.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being Half-past Eleven of the clock.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.